[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Updates - 14 April 2023

Wed Apr 19 07:52:53 UTC 2023

Colleagues

Good morning; for many of us this is very important indeed; and do not see
it as precluding a closed generic in a particular segment of business
(for example the "flowers" example or that provided by Switzerland) where
there are close relationships between the players and agreement that one
entity represents the others in the group;

best

Nigel

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 16:59, John McElwaine <
john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com> wrote:

> With respect “representativeness”, I must respectfully state that the
> following is a redline for me:
>
>
>
>    1. *For “representativeness”, applicants must demonstrate that the
>    applicant represents all or a significant part of the businesses (or has
>    their agreement) in the industry or grouping related to the closed generic
>    term.*
>
>
>
> The revisions would *only* allow for a closed generic applicant that was
> an international trade association of businesses.  This is far afield from
> what we have discussed and would fall into the category of an impermissible
> Policy determination.
>
>
>
> I agree with the concept of  “Non Anti-Competitiveness” as a part of the
> Framework process as a part of the delegation section, which is Section
> IV.  However, we are discussing this mostly in a double-negative way.
> Moreover, this is an area of law that I fear we are trying to define and
> which is outside of our knowledge.  I prefer something like Proposed
> Alternative #1, which I would suggest is revised as follows:
>
>
>
> 2.            For “non anti-competitive behaviour”, applicants must commit
> that its use of this closed generic gTLD will not be used to violate
> national laws prohibiting unfair methods of competition, such as collusion,
> restraints of trade that prohibit third parties from supplying or offering
> to supply goods or services, or otherwise monopolistically controlling,
> limiting, or restricting the supply of goods or services
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-gac-closed-generics <
> gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Melissa Peters
> Allgood
> *Sent:* Friday, April 14, 2023 2:34 PM
> *To:* gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Updates - 14 April
> 2023
>
>
>
> *◄External Email►* - From: gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org
>
>
>
> Hi all –
>
>
>
> I want to share a bit of the work that staff has done to support your
> efforts and provide more detail about the approach to our upcoming calls.
>
>
>
> *Discussion Draft v2.1
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1wtLVcyWhyrCaYl1iqlAncaIyrqpS-2D-2D0aPCTjpwMue7I_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAm5U0rBXiZs3BfB3GfKU2uR&m=ODO8endu2yFS9Q7WIZvDyDo1jWyvQo0fVRf64r8ZyBJHmS1kTm2DEU42C8rV4FGM&s=n6Zv8I5X6-mQu2qIZs8CpuYTk5kqq3ZsvNMfiqiSDUM&e=>*
>
> We will continue to work our way through all your inputs into this
> document. It has been cleaned up slightly, hence the v2.1, but nothing of
> substance has been altered. We will move through this document in the
> following manner:
>
>    - Section III.  Applying for a Closed Generic gTLD
>    - Section IV. Evaluating a Closed Generic gTLD Application
>    - Section V. Contracting & Post-Delegation Review
>    - Definitions
>    - Policy questions and possible implementation questions based on
>    group discussions to date
>       - I don’t anticipate getting into the substance of these and will
>       simply ask if the areas detailed properly encapsulate other conversations
>       had by this group
>
>
>
> In comments, staff have identified possible areas of duplication in
> upcoming points under discussion. When such areas arise, I will ask for the
> temperature of the room on the duplication issue before possibly moving
> onto the substance of the framework element.
>
>
>
> *Closed Generics Framework v3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1u0Nb9-5FCJ-2D6R-5FZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY-5FvzS3QixgQ_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAm5U0rBXiZs3BfB3GfKU2uR&m=ODO8endu2yFS9Q7WIZvDyDo1jWyvQo0fVRf64r8ZyBJHmS1kTm2DEU42C8rV4FGM&s=k27Asp9yNGvBNSgyJY2Pi8f1F7M5gBtFQCRbjkgfgm0&e=>*
>
> This is a clean copy of framework elements from Discussion Draft v2.1
> where the group has demonstrated broad agreement. This document will
> continue to evolve as you work through the remaining sections of Discussion
> Draft v2.1. *Please keep this document clean*. We will consider this
> document as a whole after we complete the remaining work found in
> Discussion Draft v2.1.
>
>
>
> *Proposed Edits to Representativeness or Non Anti-Competitiveness*
>
> Sophie has shared proposed edits to this element on the mailing list.
> Please respond on the mailing list if:
>
>    1. You disagree *and* this a red line for you
>    2. You wish to state a preference between the options presented
>
> Staff will incorporate your feedback on this element into Discussion Draft
> v2.1.
>
>
>
> *Upcoming Discussions*
>
> As we continue to work through Discussion Draft v2.1, I’d remind you that
> this is *not *the time to rehash previous positions. We all understand
> that many elements under discussion may not be the preference of a given
> individual while also not rising to the level of personal red line.
> Accordingly, *I ask you limit interventions to clarifying questions
> and/or indications that the text under discussion is a personal red line.*
>
>
>
> Finally, at this point in the work I ask you focus your energy on the
> spirit and intention of each framework element under discussion rather than
> details of the text. I recognize this is far easier said than done, but I
> ask we all try.
>
>
>
> As always, my sincere thanks for your continued hard work. We are getting
> there!
>
>
>
> Wishing you all a lovely weekend,
>
> Melissa
>
> *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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230419/c33ae856/attachment.html>