[council] Update on Closed Generics
Mark Datysgeld
mark at governanceprimer.com
Tue Aug 22 18:03:13 UTC 2023
Can we agree on the sentiment that we /should/ send some form of
instruction? This directly relates to policy development and will
ultimately come back to the GNSO Council, so we should adopt a position,
even if it is a soft one.
If I had to estimate, and this is personal conjecture, I would say that
we lean towards this not being a dependency. Perhaps it is a question
that should call for an expression of disagreement in case any
representative feels strongly against this. Otherwise, we proceed with
recommending it is not a dependency.
Best,
On 22 Aug 2023 13:24, DiBiase, Gregory via council wrote:
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> I think we’re discussing what, if any, instruction we should give to
> the Board in addition to the information that 1) finalization of
> policy on closed generics should not be a dependency for the next
> round; and 2) despite best efforts, the facilitated dialogue on closed
> generics did not reach a mutually agreed framework so this group is
> wrapping up and putting together a summary of their work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2023 7:10 PM
> *To:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> *Cc:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>; Avri Doria
> <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG;
> becky.burr at board.icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
> and know the content is safe.
>
> Thanks Greg and Tomslin.
>
> Could someone please clarify the following for the discussion on
> Thursday?
>
> 1. Is it being proposed that Council will write to the Board saying
> Closed Generic applications should be accepted in the next round
> (subject to not moving forward in the evaluation process unless
> further policy is adopted by the Board?)
>
> 2. If Closed Generic applications are to be accepted, is Council, in
> its letter to the Board, going to clarify whether an open generic
> application can be put on hold as a result of a competing Closed
> Generic application for the same string? (What happened in the 2012
> round in relation to this question?)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 6:52 AM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tomslin,
>
> Good question. My opinion is that forming a new team is an option,
> but not a necessity. I am not sure we have the bandwidth to do so
> (at least in the short term).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 20, 2023 2:26 PM
> *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the
> sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks Kurt and Anne for pointing out the concerns with the
> wording that we potentially could have used in the letter to the
> board regarding this issue.
>
> I am in agreement that the council must intentionally be clear in
> the letter to the board that (a) GNSO still doesn't have any
> policy recommendation on this issue and (b) the next round should
> not be delayed based on this issue.
>
> Regarding the 'third alternative' that has come up, would that
> mean we put a new team together *now*, with new composition rules
> and a new charter "based on the good work that has been done to
> date in the facilitated dialogue"? (We are yet to read the final
> report of the group but I think the group did a good job in
> exploring in-depth the problems and possibilities of closed
> generics). If the answer is yes to a new team, does it mean that
> the GNSO/GAC/ALAC leadership conclusion "that there is neither the
> need nor the community bandwidth to conduct additional work at
> this stage" false? (I thought the 3 community leadership were
> pretty accurate on that assertion).
>
> Warmly,
>
> Tomslin
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 05:56, Anne ICANN via council
> <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, Susan. This is very helpful. I think the
> language stating that "any applications" for Closed Generics
> "should not proceed" is phrased in a manner which conveys a
> policy opinion that such applications should be accepted in
> the next round. (It essentially defines a status quo from
> 2012.) If GNSO is NOT deciding that policy issue, (and I
> don't think the Council can decide it without further policy
> work), then we should be clearer and that is why I suggested
> we simply say that (1) the next round should not be delayed
> based on this issue and that (2) the Council does not believe
> that the issue can be resolved by commencing a policy process
> such as EPDP.
>
> More importantly, I think your recitation to Final Report
> language provides a possible constructive way forward which
> might be pursued in the Council''s statement to the Board.
> Essentially it says a process should involve a "clean slate"
> approach with non-interested parties. I'm pasting this below
> again for further discussion and consideration at Council:
>
> *"The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be
> considered in future policy work, it should also involve
> experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and
> economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the
> community that are not associated with any past, present, or
> expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD
> applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent
> such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an
> outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working
> Group *[emphasis added]."
>
> This may make more sense as a proposed way forward unless we
> just want to hear from the Board first if they will be willing
> to make policy or are declining to make policy. It would be a
> real time saver if we could get some Board Sub Pro Caucus
> feedback on this issue.
>
> Thanks for raising this third alternative that comes directly
> from the work of Sub Pro.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:01 AM Susan Payne
> <susan.payne at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anne
>
> I wanted to share some thoughts on the two issues you raised.
>
> *Issue #1*
>
> I read Greg’s email as merely addressing the concern Kurt
> raised that we should not be instructing the Board what to
> do, rather than expressing some underlying intent to
> endorse accepting closed generic applications.
>
> Is it the use of the wording “*unless and until there is a
> community-developed consensus policy in place, any
> applications seeking to impose exclusive registry access
> for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or
> that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in
> Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not
> proceed”* in the original Chairs letter to the dialogue
> group that you feel implies this? My assumption would be
> that this isn’t the intent. “Should not proceed” in the
> last round was ICANN-speak for rejected or refused.
> Council certainly should discuss this, however, to be sure
> we are in agreement on what is the intent – and then the
> letter to the Board can be drafted accordingly.
>
> To my mind, it would make no sense for Council to
> encourage that applicants to be permitted to apply for a
> closed generic, with that application then being placed on
> indefinite hold (if that were how one interpreted “should
> not proceed”) unless and until some policy is developed
> which, the Chairs letter indicates, we may not even be
> working on. If the Board decision is that closed generics
> will not be permitted to proceed, therefore, it would be
> preferable if the AGB makes it clear to applicants that
> they should not apply for a string if that is their
> intent. If an applicant nevertheless does submit an
> application for what is intended to be a closed generic,
> they could be given the option either to withdraw or to
> amend their application to be non-closed, as was the case
> in 2012. For the avoidance of doubt there was a third
> option in the 2012 round, to have the application placed
> on hold pending development of policy by SubPro. No
> applicants selected this option in the last round. For the
> future, it might be reasonable for applicants to have this
> option if policy work were underway, but not if it isn’t.
>
> *Issue #2*
>
> I don’t believe that Council itself has taken a decision
> that it will not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy
> using an existing GNSO policy process. No doubt Council
> will discuss this next week.
>
> I also do not believe that Council is *required* to
> develop a policy. SubPro attempted to do so and could not
> agree on recommendations. The Board invited the GNSO
> Council and GAC to start the facilitated dialogue on a
> workable framework “in the interest of helping the
> community make progress”. The GAC and/or GNSO Council
> could have refused to try this approach at that point, and
> so it is surely also open to either or both to inform the
> Board that we have taken this as far as we can for now.
>
> If there were to be further policy work, I think many of
> us are of the view that you cannot keep putting the same
> people in a room and expecting them to somehow come out
> with a different outcome. The community has tried to
> develop a policy on this and has been unable to do so. As
> was noted at SubPro 23.1:
>
> The Working Group believes that *if *this issue were to be
> considered in future policy work, it should also involve
> experts in the areas of competition law, public policy,
> and economics. In addition, it should be performed by
> those in the community that are not associated with any
> past, present, or expectations of future work in
> connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new
> gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future
> work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different
> than the one achieved in this Working Group [emphasis added].
>
> Susan
>
> Susan Payne
> Head of Legal Policy
> Com Laude
> *T*+44 (0) 20 7421 8250
> *Ext* 255
>
> <https://comlaude.com/>
>
> /Follow us on //Linkedin/
> <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>/and
> //YouTube/
> <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Anne ICANN via council
> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2023 5:18 PM
> *To:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> *Cc:* COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG; Avri Doria
> <avri.doria at board.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> Thanks Greg - The point you make that there is as yet no
> official statement from Council to the Board on this issue
> is an important one. I think there is rough consensus
> at the Council level that we don't want the next round to
> be delayed by this issue. I think two significant
> questions remain as to the following:
>
> Issue #1. Whether to accept applications for Closed
> Generics in the next round or to pause such applications
> pending future Board action or GNSO policy development
> efforts. The draft statements put forward so far would
> endorse accepting applications and that is also a policy
> statement which essentially defines the "status quo" as
> permitting such applications. (After all, closed generic
> applications could block open generic applications in that
> instance.) This is tricky because the GAC has reiterated
> that its previous Closed Generic advice is "standing
> advice". Would it be a solution for the Board to simply
> accept that advice in relation to a Closed Generic
> application and then accept applications in the next round
> but require the Applicant to prove that the application
> serves a public interest goal without specifying any
> standards that apply for that proof? Or could the Board
> say that it cannot accept the advice from the GAC because
> it would require ICANN to weigh the content of the Closed
> Generic application and to police the public interest goal
> issue during the term of the contract award, meaning the
> requirement of the GAC advice is out of scope for ICANN's
> mission as overly content -related? Maybe the Council
> should just say "don't delay the next round" and should
> not take a policy position on whether or not to accept
> Closed Generic applications when the next round opens,
> i.e. leave that to the Board to decide that policy issue
> as well?
>
> Issue #2. Whether the Council itself has taken a decision
> that it will not proceed to develop Closed Generic policy
> using an existing GNSO policy process. (I think it's
> possible the Board has the authority to request a formal
> policy process - not sure whether Council has the right to
> refuse to do so.) Did the Council already decide it would
> not undertake an existing policy process when it
> authorized the Facilitated Dialogue process? Does the
> statement need to reflect a Council decision in this
> regard and if so, does that need a separate vote from
> Council? Are we risking delay of the next round over the
> Council's failure to act on this policy issue? The Board
> invoked the Facilitated Dialogue process outside normal
> policy development channels but it appears that process
> failed.
>
> Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
>
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51 AM DiBiase, Gregory via
> council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> A couple thoughts here:
>
> 1. We have not communicated a decision or feedback to
> Board yet, so we have time to discuss our
> messaging (so far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a
> letter to the dialogue participants and the
> dialogue participants have agreed with the
> letter’s sentiment).
> 2. I think council is in agreement that work on
> closed generics cannot be a dependency for the
> next round and the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed
> Generic gTLDs should not continue to be the
> vehicle advancing this work (please let me know if
> I’m oversimplifying). If this is correct, I think
> we can simplify this issue to: how or if we should
> frame the “status quo” to the Board. More
> specifically, we can take a closer look at this
> proposed language from the letter to the dialogue
> participants:
>
> 1. “until there is community-developed policy,
> the Board should maintain the position from
> the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking
> to impose exclusive registry access for
> "generic strings" to a single person or entity
> and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates
> (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
> Agreement) should not proceed;”
>
> 3. Perhaps we should modify this part to say closer
> to: “given that there is no community-developed
> policy on closed generics (i.e., any applications
> seeking to impose exclusive registry access for
> "generic strings" to a single person or entity
> and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as
> defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
> Agreement), we acknowledge that the Board may not
> allow closed generics to proceed (in line with
> their position from the 20201 round) until policy
> is developed.” In other words, we don’t need to
> instruct the Board on what the status quo is,
> rather, we are informing them that a policy on
> closed generics has not been finalized and we
> recommend not delaying the next round until this
> policy work is completed.
>
> I’m sure I have point 3 wrong as I am not as
> well-versed in subpro as others, but we can discuss
> further to make sure we are all aligned.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> *On Behalf Of
> *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com/> via council
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com
> <mailto:paul at elstermcgrady.com>>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org
> <mailto:avri.doria at board.icann.org>>; GNSO Council
> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed
> Generics
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the
> organization. Do not click links or open attachments
> unless you can confirm the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>
> As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email
> exchange), the question of status quo is not settled.
> That is the reason the SubPro working group
> specifically asked the Board to settle the question.
>
> The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy
> when it introduced an additional restriction into the
> criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say temporary
> because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>
> The SubPro final report does not recommend an
> extension of that restriction by way of a “pause,” the
> report specifically recommends something else. By
> recommending a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be
> amending the final report recommendation.
>
> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at
> the moment.
>
> Kurt
>
> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN
> <anneicanngnso at gmail.com
> <mailto:anneicanngnso at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>
> As I see it, the issue has come back to what
> constitutes the "status quo". This issue was
> hotly debated in the Sub Pro Working Group. Some
> maintained that there was no prohibition on the
> applications for Closed Generics because none was
> contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
> due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to
> "pause" pending policy development, the "status
> quo" is actually a "pause" which would be
> continued at the start of the next round. The
> risk I see for the ICANN Board in the latter
> situation is that those existing applications for
> Closed Generics (which are on hold) as well as any
> future applications to be taken in the next round
> (not prohibited by this recommendation) would
> build a case for Request for Reconsideration if
> the Board does not allow those applications to
> move forward. For example, the grounds might be
> Applicant Freedom of Expression under the Human
> Rights Core Value and the underlying principle of
> Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been
> affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now being
> confirmed in the Sub Pro IRT process.
>
> Another factor is that the Board has consistently
> declined to make policy. And I'm not certain that
> the GNSO Council actually has the authority to
> direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.
> Are you gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>
> Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up
> the next round but of course there is a year to
> go. If the Board is willing to take a decision on
> this, that is one scenario. If the Board is not
> willing to take a decision on this and/or is
> concerned about the risk of expensive litigation
> over a possible ban, then that is another
> scenario. Has anyone spoken with our Sub Pro
> Board reps about this approach? (They are copied
> here.)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
> <mailto:anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15 AM Paul McGrady via
> council <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Thanks for this. I’m not sure I am
> understanding your concern. One of the basic
> tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed
> to was that, absent any changes captured in
> the Recommendations, that the status quo would
> prevail. All the letter does is ask for
> that. I feel better about sticking with the
> WG’s inability to change the status quo than I
> do asking the Board to write a policy when the
> community couldn’t agree to anything, even
> after two valiant efforts. We tried in the
> WG, we couldn’t get there, the status quo
> should prevail. We tried again at the request
> of the Board at the SO/AC level, we couldn’t
> get there, the status quo should prevail. The
> letter leaves open the possibility of future
> community work on this but notes there is no
> bandwidth or appetite to do so and we don’t
> want the next round held up. Help me
> understand you concern about asking the Board
> to maintain the status quo until/if the
> community comes up with a policy on these.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* council
> <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> *On
> Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com
> <http://kjpritz.com/> via council
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
> *To:* John McElwaine
> <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com
> <mailto:john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>>
> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> Hi John:
>
> Thanks for taking time to make this detailed
> report, and also thanks to the
> well-intentioned people that participated in
> the effort, in particular, our GNSO
> representatives. I am not surprised by the
> outcome.
>
> I am surprised by the recommendation to pause
> any release of closed generics to a future
> round. Such an action would turn the
> consensus-based policy development process on
> its head.
>
> 1. I don’t understand how the SO/AC
> leaders have the authority to revise the
> PDP final report recommendation.
>
> The PDP final report (approved by each of
> the Councillors) stated that the closed
> generic decision should be left up to the
> ICANN Board. The final report did
> not recommend the conflicting direction
> that the closed generics ban be continued
> until a future round.
>
> The Board made an attempt to (re)involve
> the community by inviting the GAC and GNSO
> to develop a solution. With that effort
> closed, we should revert back to the
> final report recommendations. We should
> not change the consensus position
> developed. Do we think the PDP team would
> have approved a recommendation to pause
> closed generics for an additional round?
> (No.)
>
> We have thoroughly discussed the
> conditions under which a Council approved
> final report can be changed (e.g., GGP),
> and this is not one of them.
>
> 2. Continuing the ban on closed
> generics effectively abandons
> the consensus policy model of decision making.
>
> The new gTLD policy developments, in
> 2007-8 and 2016-21 have asked the
> questions: (1) should there be a round of
> TLDs and, if yes, (2) what restrictions /
> conditions should be in place to address
> SSR, IP, and competition concerns.
>
> Restrictions and conditions enjoying
> consensus support were implemented in the
> program. (An illustrative example is the
> RPM IRT, whose recommendations
> were ratified by the community STI.)
>
> During discussions on closed generics,
> there were people for barring them,
> allowing them, and allowing them with
> restrictions. Pausing any introduction of
> closed generics essentially creates a
> policy advocated by a minority (and in any
> case not enjoying consensus support). The
> final report indicated as much.
>
> This result provides an incentive to avoid
> compromise. Going forward, those wanting
> to implement an unsupported policy can
> refuse to compromise through a PDP
> and subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the
> hope that leadership will “give up” and
> implement unsupported restrictions.
>
> 3. The decision to ban closed generics
> for an additional round contradicts the
> one step the Board took.
>
> The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team
> established guardrails, prohibiting a
> model that would either ban or provide for
> the unrestricted release of closed
> generics. We cannot be sure this is where
> the Board will land absent input from the
> GAC-GNSO effort, but we should not erase
> the chance that the Board would develop
> a balanced decision.
>
> Two additional points:
>
>
> 1. I do not believe that deferring the
> issue to the Board will delay the next
> round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour.
> The Board has more than a year to make a
> call.
>
>
> 2. I do not believe the Board is
> exceeding their authority in making the
> call. The GNSO specifically assigned the
> task to the Board as part of their policy
> management responsibility. In any event,
> the Board established that authority when
> it paused closed generics in 2012,
> contradicting the Council-approved policy.
>
>
> If given the opportunity to participate in a
> discussion on this issue, I would oppose the
> recommendation that the issue should be
> paused, and closed generics banned for
> the reasons stated above. I would support the
> final report recommendation that the issue be
> decided by the Board.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kurt
>
> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine
> via council <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
> As GNSO Council liaison to the
> ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update
> you on the latest developments on this
> project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions
> amongst themselves that I also
> participated in, Sebastien (in his
> capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan Zuck
> (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC
> Chair) sent the attached letter to the
> participants in the dialogue. For reasons
> set out in the letter, and in response to
> questions that the dialogue participants
> had referred to them (also noted in the
> letter), the three Chairs have
> collectively decided that it will be
> neither necessary to continue with the
> dialogue to develop a final framework nor
> initiate further policy development work
> on this topic.
>
> The dialogue participants have discussed
> the Chairs’ joint letter and agreed to
> conclude their work as requested,
> including producing an outcomes report to
> ensure that the work to date is thoroughly
> documented. Participants also agreed to
> forward the Chairs’ letter to all the
> commenters that submitted input on the
> draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG, BC,
> ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited
> those commenters that wish to engage with
> the group to join their next call to
> clarify any significant concerns they
> raised in the feedback they provided.
>
> The staff team that is supporting the
> dialogue is currently preparing a draft
> outcomes report for the group to review.
> The group intends for the outcomes report
> to serve as an introduction and summary of
> their work, including expressly clarifying
> that the draft framework the group
> published in June 2023 does not reflect
> agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product
> of compromise that was reached in the
> interests of soliciting community feedback
> on the various elements and points
> included in the draft framework. The
> outcomes report will also include all the
> community feedback that were submitted in
> full, links to the group’s community wiki
> space and other relevant documentation,
> and the participants’ feedback on the
> consensus building techniques and
> approaches that were used for the dialogue.
>
> The group hopes to wrap up its work by
> September, in line with its previous plan
> to conclude the dialogue and final
> framework by end-Q3 2023. I understand
> that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will
> also be sending a separate communication
> to the ICANN Board that reflects the
> decision they took and, as stated in the
> letter, expressing the collective view that:
>
> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be
> viewed as a dependency for the next round;
>
> (2) until there is community-developed
> policy, the Board should maintain the
> position from the 2012 round (i.e., any
> applications seeking to impose exclusive
> registry access for "generic strings" to a
> single person or entity and/or that
> person's or entity's Affiliates (as
> defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
> Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>
> (3) should the community decide in the
> future to resume the policy discussions,
> this should be based on the good work that
> has been done to date in the facilitated
> dialogue.
>
> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer
> any questions you may have on the letter,
> the Chairs’ decision and the proposed next
> steps. You may also wish to check in with
> the representatives that each of your
> Stakeholder Groups appointed to the
> dialogue for further information.
>
> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us
> when I say that we are very grateful to
> the dialogue participants and the staff
> support team for all the hard work and
> consensus building that resulted in a
> detailed and substantive, if preliminary,
> draft framework. I also hope that the
> participants’ feedback on the methods and
> techniques used in the dialogue, as well
> as other lessons learned from the
> experience, will provide the GNSO Council
> and community with useful information that
> we can put into practice in future policy
> discussions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
>
> *Confidentiality Notice*
> This message is intended exclusively for
> the individual or entity to which it is
> addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is proprietary,
> privileged, confidential or otherwise
> legally exempt from disclosure. If you are
> not the named addressee, you are not
> authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
> disseminate this message or any part of
> it. If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000)
> or reply to this e-mail and delete all
> copies of this message.
>
> <Message from ALAC GAC GNSO Chairs to
> Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue
> Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023
> (002).pdf>_______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you
> consent to the processing of your personal
> data for purposes of subscribing to this
> mailing list accordance with the ICANN
> Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>)
> and the website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change
> your membership status or configuration,
> including unsubscribing, setting
> digest-style delivery or disabling
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
> This email originated from outside the firm.
> Please use caution.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent
> to the processing of your personal data for
> purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and
> the website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your
> membership status or configuration, including
> unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
> or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of
> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
> ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website
> Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).
> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your
> membership status or configuration, including
> unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
> and so on.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be
> disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other
> than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting
> the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and
> immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that
> Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not
> accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your
> responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and
> any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept
> liability for statements which are clearly the sender's
> own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its
> member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company
> registered in England and Wales with company number
> 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group
> includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company
> registered in England and Wales with company number
> 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a
> company registered in England and Wales with company
> number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little
> Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a
> company registered in Scotland with company number
> SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South
> West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba
> Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated
> in the State of Washington and principal office address at
> Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle,
> WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company
> registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and
> registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo,
> 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company
> registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle
> Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further
> information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing
> to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms
> of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit
> the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a
> vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
Mark W. Datysgeld [markwd.website <https://markwd.website>]
Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com
<https://governanceprimer.com>]
ICANN GNSO Councilor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230822/bec88f71/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18901 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230822/bec88f71/image001-0001.png>
More information about the council
mailing list