[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Updates - Preparation for 24 April Call

Mon Apr 24 06:07:55 UTC 2023

Hello all,
My ''feeling’'
Arnaud

> Le 24 avr. 2023 à 07:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
> 
> Melissa said that she will start Monday's meeting with a feeling of the room on the new staff proposal. Since I will not likely have a voice, I will put my comments on the record here.
> 
> First, it was a challenge to FIND the new cooments. I think I found it (reproduced here in BLUE).
> 
> My reaction is that I was somewhat overwhelmed by it. I have no doubt that I could interpret it as providing all of the protection that I might want. I can also see that it would be virtually impossible to ensure that others interpret it the same way, and to enforce.
> 
> Although I am sure that this wasn't the intent, sadly, the expression that came to mind was "Baffle them with B...."
> 
> 
> 2. For “non anti-competitive behavior”, an applicant must commit that its use of this closed generic gTLD will be consistent with principles of competitive neutrality, non-discrimination and transparency. This commitment must be reflected in the registry operator’s contract with ICANN, which may be in the form of a Code of Conduct or as part of a specification to the extent that one is developed to govern a registry operator’s use of a closed generic gTLD.

>> It is an operating commitment that needs to be followed up afterwards on terms that the applicant must define

> 
> Explanatory Note:
> o This criterion builds on the requirements that applicants of closed generic gTLDs must state their public interest goal(s) and intended purpose for the gTLD, and the intended purpose(s) must not be to solely exclude other parties from using the gTLD or to serve the applicant’s own commercial interests.

+1

> 
> o In addition, the group recognizes that the nature of a closed generic gTLD involves exclusive registry access to second-level domains under that gTLD string. The group affirms that this criterion is intended to ensure that an applicant does not misuse its control of a closed generic gTLD to undermine the public interest.

Don’t understand.

> 
> o The group also affirms that exclusive registry access and single entity control of a closed generic gTLD does not, in and of itself, violate the principles of competitive neutrality, non-discrimination or transparency.

Why ?

> 
> o In light of the above:
> 
> o “Competitive neutrality” in this regard means that the applicant will not use its control of the closed generic gTLD to gain an advantage in the market or segment of the public toward which its use of the gTLD is directed, to the detriment of its competitors and other entities also operating in that market or sector.

+1

> 
> o “Non-discrimination” in this regard means that the applicant will act fairly in respect of all third parties that also provide the same goods, information or services to the same target market or segment of the public, and will not exclude access to its goods, information or services on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, or other attribute generally recognized as protected categories or classes of people.

+1

> 
> o “Transparency” in this regard means that the applicant will operate its closed generic gTLD in a manner consistent with these principles by establishing, publishing, and adhering to policies governing its provision of goods, services or information through the gTLD.

+1

> 
> From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Melissa Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood at icann.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:01 PM
> To: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Updates - Preparation for 24 April Call
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you for your understanding of my need to leave our last call and for Emily’s willingness to step in. I appreciate it. Building on the work you accomplished on 19 April, I’d like to propose the following:
> 
> Approach to Synthesized Language
> Staff shared updated language that attempts to synthesize your discussions of 19 April. This has been shared on the mailing list and has been dropped into comments in the Discussion Draft v2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wtLVcyWhyrCaYl1iqlAncaIyrqpS--0aPCTjpwMue7I/edit> document. I ask you to review this language and ask any clarifying questions on the mailing list before our next call, Monday, 24 April at 12:30 UTC. At the top of this call, I will ask for the temperature of the room on the synthesized language. We will then move onto the modified approach to the Discussion Draft v2 document, discussed below.
> 
> Modified Approach to the Discussion Draft v2 Document
> For the remaining issues and elements under discussion, It is clear that we need to move through the remaining sections of Discussion Draft v2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wtLVcyWhyrCaYl1iqlAncaIyrqpS--0aPCTjpwMue7I/edit> in a focused manner.
> 
> The goal of our next call is to pinpoint where we have the strongest red lines. I anticipate that most, if not all, of this call will focus on working through the document to pinpoint these areas.
> 
> To do this, we will continue moving line by line through the document, but will modify the questions asked. Once we get through the entire document and the red lines have been clearly identified, we will return to those points for focused discussion and exchange.
> 
> When examining specific text, “red line” means the framework issue to which the text refers is of the utmost importance to you. This can mean the issue MUST be included in the framework, or that this issue MUST NOT be included in the framework. If you indicate a red line, you are communicating that this is a topic that will directly impact your ability to support the final framework.
> 
> For each point under discussion, I will ask the group the following questions in this order:
> 
> Is the text under discussion duplicative of previous areas of broad agreement?
> If yes, we will move onto the next item in Discussion Draft v2.
> If not, we will move onto question 2.
> Please note, most inquiries will not begin with this question. It will only be asked if the text has been flagged by staff as possibly duplicative.
> 
> Does the text under discussion encapsulate an issue that MUST be included in the framework in order for you to agree with the final framework product? All who agree with this statement will raise their hand.
> Raised hands will be captured by staff in a table document that will remain open for 48 hours for you to detail the specifics of your red line.
> We will not open the queue to discuss the specifics of your red line at this time.
> 
> Does the text under discussion encapsulate an issue that MUST NOT be included in the framework in order for you to agree with the final framework product? All who agree with this statement will raise their hand.
> Raised hands will be captured by staff in a table document that will remain open for 48 hours for you to detail the specifics of your red line.
> We will not open the queue to discuss the specifics of your red line at this time.
> 
> Does the text cause you concern about any of the following: implementability, the issue is covered by SubPro, the issue is in the wrong section of the framework, or specific concerns with the text (but not the issue itself). All who agree with this statement will raise their hand.
> Raised hands will be captured by staff in a table document that will remain open for 48 hours for you to detail the specifics of your concern.
> We will not open the queue to discuss the specifics of your concern at this time.
> 
> Under this approach, areas with broad silence indicate broad agreement.
> 
> We will continue, line by line, through the remaining portions of sections III, IV, V and definitions to gain greater clarity around where we need to focus call time versus those areas that may need language tweaks that can be handled asynchronously.
> 
> I will capture the questions detailed above in a separate document for those who’d like to see the questions as we go through each point. Again, I will also ask each question the same way, in the same order, for every section of text under discussion.
> 
> Big picture, my hope is that this shift in how we navigate Discussion Draft v2 meets our need to get through the whole document, while focusing our energy on red line issues, in a manner that allows your communities sufficient time to review any agreed framework.
> 
> Proposed Schedule and Next Steps
> As of right now, we have two calls remaining before our 28 April goal date to share a framework (assuming one results). This is a significant lift. As such, I’d like to propose adding at least one additional call the first week of May, recognizing 1 May is a holiday for many of you.
> 
> 24 April:  Move through the entire Discussion Document, identifying red lines and broad agreement, as detailed above.
> 
> 26 April:  Red line discussions.
> 
> 3 May:  Red line discussions continued (if necessary).
> 
> On or before 4 May:  Final agreed framework + any areas of divergence (to the extent they exist) found inClosed Generics Framework v3. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit> You will have a number of days for asynchronous reflection and review.
> 
> On or before 8 May:  Meet via zoom to take temperature of the group on the final framework document.
> 
> Transparency
> The high-level notes of your work in this group will be published in conjunction with your decision on a final framework. Your community groups can expect those by mid-May.
> 
> We will discuss other transparency issues in the coming days.
> 
> You have all worked every hard to find a path forward and we are in the final days. Thank you for your continued efforts!
> 
> 
> Wishing you all a lovely weekend,
> 
> 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/20230424/2b1eb344/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230424/2b1eb344/signature-0001.asc>