[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Feedback Request - On Mailing List

Wed Apr 12 16:52:30 UTC 2023

Hi Melissa,

My answers below. I do have some questions about the Information you/we 
are proposing to share with the GNSO Council. I think we can be broader 
and more inclusive of ideas already discussed*.*

Timeline:

1. Fine.

2. April 26th fine.

3. April 19th, the early call I can make. I may not be able to attend a 
later call, but support its scheduling if others do. OK for another 
staff member to step in - although we'll miss you!

*/Increasing transparency/*

Assuming the group agrees upon a framework, once that work is shared 
with the broader community would you like to increase transparency into 
the work you’ve done? If so, options include:

 1. Open the wiki page, making call recordings and notes publicly
    available. ==> *I think once we release the version to circulate to
    the Community at the end of the month, we can open things up. We are
    still covered by our agreed-upon confidentiality and practices now,
    and to get to the finish line of our Framework for circulation by
    the end of the month, we should not change our agreed-upon rules of
    operation. I do not think we should open the current drafts we are
    working on - for the very reasons we discussed all along. *
 2. Allow observers to attend future calls, including the two sessions
    scheduled for ICANN77. => *Starting after our publication at the end
    of April (which I think is what you mean).*

*/Information to share with GNSO Council while you deliberate on 
substantive framework elements/*

Melissa wrote: <<

“To the extent this group agrees upon a framework, the expectation is 
that it will include types of things/information that will be requested 
of applicants to be included in the application, elements that will be 
evaluated in the application process, and protections following 
implementation, likely PICs. The dialogue group is also likely to 
provide a list of policy areas where the policy process needs to do 
further work to fill in gaps within the framework.”>>

*==> I think we are too detailed here, including with details we have 
not agreed to (and truly don't need at this time). I suggest the 
following abbreviated language (for the reasons below): **
*

“To the extent this group agrees upon a framework, the expectation is 
that it will include types of things/information that will be requested 
of applicants to be included in the application, elements that will be 
evaluated in the application process, and protections following 
implementation [add: over the course of the gTLD contract]. The dialogue 
group is also likely to provide a list of policy areas where the policy 
process needs to do further work to fill in gaps within the framework.”>>

*
*

*==> The change: Let's delete "like PICs" as we have not agreed on it at 
all. What we discussed is putting post-contract obligations into the 
Registry Agreement, and we followed that with discussion(s) of where 
these ongoing registry obligations would go, including at least two 
discussions (I think) of _Specification 13, _for .BRAND gTLDs (the other 
group of closed gTLDs), where they lay everything out clearly for their 
initial and ongoing obligations. We also discussed that PICs/Public 
Interest Commitments might be a very messy place to put these important 
ongoing closed generic gTLD obligations. While we may include some ideas 
in our Framework and its explanatory documents, for the GNSO Council, I 
think these too words are drilling down on details beyond our scope. If 
we delete "like PICs," I'm good with this - and support this message to 
Council.
*

Best regards,

Kathy

On 4/11/2023 5:35 PM, Melissa Peters Allgood wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the interest of dedicating our call time to framework substance, I 
> was hoping we could resolve a few outstanding matters on this mailing 
> list. Please respond to each question.
>
> */Timeline (email and document from Mary Wong on 3 April attached)/*
>
>  1. Are there any objections?
>  2. Is anyone opposed to adding a call on 26 April?
>      1. If you agree, this will give us 4 calls (12 April, 19 April,
>         24 April, and 26 April) to work through the strawman document
>         and review the agreed framework outputs before sharing with
>         the broader community.
>  3. I can only make the first 45 minutes of the 19 April call,
>     currently scheduled for 12:30 UTC. Are you opposed to another org
>     staff member stepping in to complete that call?
>      1. The alternative is to move the 19 April call to 20:00 UTC the
>         same day and I will be present the entire time.
>
> */Increasing transparency/*
>
> Assuming the group agrees upon a framework, once that work is shared 
> with the broader community would you like to increase transparency 
> into the work you’ve done? If so, options include:
>
>  1. Open the wiki page, making call recordings and notes publicly
>     available.
>  2. Allow observers to attend future calls, including the two sessions
>     scheduled for ICANN77.
>
> Please respond with your preferred approach.
>
> */Information to share with GNSO Council while you deliberate on 
> substantive framework elements/*
>
> In the interest of working in parallel with other groups, is there any 
> objection to the following information being shared with GNSO Council 
> while you deliberate on framework elements:
>
> “To the extent this group agrees upon a framework, the expectation is 
> that it will include types of things/information that will be 
> requested of applicants to be included in the application, elements 
> that will be evaluated in the application process, and protections 
> following implementation, likely PICs. The dialogue group is also 
> likely to provide a list of policy areas where the policy process 
> needs to do further work to fill in gaps within the framework.”
>
> Thank you for your continued dedication. The end is in sight.
>
> Melissa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-gac-closed-generics mailing list
> gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-gac-closed-generics
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230412/f5f62a51/attachment.html>