[gnso-gac-closed-generics] A Public Interest vs the Global Public Interest

[Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]

I‘m also ok with exploring this, although I see the GPI as first, something the closed generics *framework* has to be consistent with, and, second, as an outer boundary for any application, i.e. no application may be inconsistent with the GPI. The main burden for the applicant is nonetheless to demonstrate that the applied for string serves A public interest… and as we have said before, this entails to demonstrate what public interest is to be served, how, and why a „closed generic“ is needed in that respect - with measurable elements that will be mirrored and reviewed periodically by ICANN during the lifespan of the delegation.

kindly
jorge

________________________________

Von: Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Datum: 15. Februar 2023 um 02:31:43 MEZ
An: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] A Public Interest vs the Global Public Interest

+1 Alan Greenberg and Greg on exploring Alan Barrett's suggestion that a closed generic TLD need to satisfy A public interest, but that it must not go against the Global public interest ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 12:31 AM
To: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] A Public Interest vs the Global Public Interest

This message is being sent on behalf of both Greg and me.

We have already had some discussion on whether the test for a closed generic TLD should be simply serving A public interest, or in the Global public Interest. The GAC Beijing advice use the former term, but with the new Bylaws following the Accountability exercise and the more recent Board Global Public Interest Framework, the focus has moved towards considering the Global public interest.

Our group is clearly divided on how to proceed.

During the Washington F2F meeting, Alan Barrett suggested something that seemed a very appropriate compromise. Specifically (if I got it right) that a closed generic TLD needed to satisfy A public interest, but that it must not go against the Global public interest.

Clearly the devil is in the details regarding how we define and then evaluate these characteristics, but this balance seems to allow a lower standard of A public interest, as long as there are not competing public interests that would be harmed.

I do not recall that we really discussed Alan's suggestion in any depth, nor did it seem to make the public or internal summaries, or be explicitly included in the items to be discussed.

Greg and I strongly suggest that Alan Barrett's suggestion be fully explored as a way of achieving a compromise over how we define the public interest for closed generic TLDs.

Alan