[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Update 22 Feb 23

Tue Feb 28 20:23:02 UTC 2023

Dear Melissa and all

Just to be sure: I feel the framework questions seem general enough to cover all issues and questions we have discussed so far under the three blocks that we used to structure our discussions (aka application, evaluation, enforcement/monitoring).

If there is any intention in their formulation to change the scope and/or to exclude any of the issues we discussed so far I would request that this is made explicit and that we can discuss this – at least for nonnative speakers it’s a bit hard to make this call…

Kindly

Jorge

Von: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> Im Auftrag von Melissa Peters Allgood
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2023 16:05
An: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
Betreff: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Update 22 Feb 23

Level Set

In light of our 20 February call, I thought it timely revisit why each of you are here and the commitments you’ve made to each other and to this process. The ICANN Board asked the GNSO and GAC to engage in a dialogue to attempt to find a mutually agreeable framework for closed generic gTLDs in the next round. Each of you heard this call and volunteered for this effort.

Subsequently, you each agreed to the Participant Commitments for this group. In doing so, you committed to work toward identifying specific circumstances where closed generic gTLDs could be allowed. Further, you agreed to actively listen to one another, to ask each other questions, and to work toward solutions. You agreed to engage in this effort in good faith.

This work is hard and moving into the substance of this framework is intense, but it is essential that you all remain committed to understanding each other’s points of view and make a good faith effort to find a path forward.

I commit to continue to find ways to support each of you hearing and understanding one another. I ask that you each commit to continue to take what you hear from each other and work toward solutions.

Reworking of the Foundations for a Closed Generics Framework Document

During the 20 February call, it became evident that the document we were using in the discussion was not sufficiently clear about the direction our discussion was taking. I heard that some would like a clearer understanding of what are framework questions versus policy and/or implementation questions. My hope is that by establishing brighter lines around these questions, the work of this group will continue to be productive.

Below you will find a set of framework questions I propose we use to advance the our discussions. These are very high-level and encapsulate much of what you have already discussed. These are not intended to reopen topics where shared understanding has been found, but rather are an attempt to organize the work you’ve accomplished in a different way. The intention here is to clarify that these are the question which, if they result in agreement, will be taken forward in the appropriate GNSO policy process.

You do not need to answer these questions now. I am asking that you respond to this email identifying any high-level questions that are missing. Once you have provided your inputs, staff will incorporate your existing shared understandings/inputs (much of the substance we were discussing on Monday) within these high-level questions and the group will discuss during our hybrid session in Cancun to ensure alignment.

Framework Questions

  1.  What are the types of information that a closed generics gTLD applicant must include in the application beyond what is required by the standard application?

  1.  Are there gating criteria that an evaluator must consider in assessing a closed generic gTLD? Are there other criteria; if so, what should these look like?

  1.  Beyond the standard application process, what additional process steps must exist for a closed generic gTLD to go through?

  1.  How can the evaluator determine if the application should be granted?

  1.  What are the type(s) of mechanisms that can be used to hold a closed generic gTLD registry operator accountable for the commitments it made in its application?

Please note, all additional discussion requests related to the 20 February call will be addressed during our hybrid session in Cancun.

Additional Follow Up from 20 February Call

Blue text group to revise Block 1, 4a/b language in Foundation for a Closed Generic Framework document
Blue text group = Manal, Greg, Kathy, Jason, Ronke, Jorge, Arnaud, Alan G

Greg and Kathy agreed to take another look at Block 1, 4a/b language and clarify for the group. The document is found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IyMIa8ktcLT2Td4Wi-UxHP2GaRLT7rJR5RFgPg8ZnYA/edit>.

SubPro recommendations
When discussing Block 2, 2a of the Foundation for a Closed Generics Framework, the group generally agreed that a framework for closed generic gTLDs should not contradict SubPro. Jeff took an action item to identify SubPro recommendations that relate to this issue.

Current Action Items for the Group

Missing High-Level Framework Questions
As discussed above, please respond to this email identifying what, if any, high-level questions are missing. These inputs are due by our next call, 27 February.

Asynchronous Work #7<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vRHpMrWyaJjgv0jyJXAeO6RuE56ImeFe61-mNobL3M8/edit> - Definitions
If you want your inputs to be considered, please respond to this document. We will discuss these inputs on our next call on 27 February.

Asynchronous Work #8<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fq9PBOJv2PjW8bqYqpeZjLHYYddua7th1FhumUGfF4Y/edit> – Threats/Risks
If you want your inputs to be considered, please respond to this document. We will discuss these on 6 March.

On our next call (27 February at 12:30 UTC) we will discuss issues addressed in Asynchronous Work #7 with the goal of finding shared understanding of how relevant terms should be considered in the application.

Please reach out with any questions.

Thanks,
Melissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230228/7796a2b4/attachment-0001.html>