[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics - Please Review and Respond

[jeff at jjnsolutions.com]

Melissa,

See my responses in Purple




------ Original Message ------
>From "Melissa Peters Allgood" <melissa.allgood at icann.org>
To "gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org" 
<gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
Date 6/1/2023 1:36:46 PM
Subject [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics - Please Review and 
Respond

>Hello all,
>
>
>
>First, I’d like to thank each of you for your hard work yesterday. Your 
>willingness to hear one another and find a compromise was on full 
>display. I recognize that many of you don’t love where your work 
>landed, but you worked hard to find a path that all can live with. 
>Truly the MSM at work.
>
>
>
>Below you will find our attempt to capture the agreement in principle 
>that was reached.
>
>
>
>Definitions - Staff proposed agreement in principle based on 31 May 
>call:
>
>
>
>For purposes of the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic gTLDs, it 
>was necessary for the group to have a shared understanding of concepts 
>relevant to closed generic gTLDs. Bearing in mind relevant definitions 
>found in the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, Section 2.9(c) (“Affiliate”) 
>and Specification 11, Section 3(d) (“Generic String”), the group agreed 
>not to change any existing definitions, but acknowledged that there are 
>likely other entities beyond “Affiliates” that would benefit from 
>exclusive operation of a closed generic gTLD with the registry. A 
>future policy group should consider incorporating this concept in its 
>work.
>For purposes of this discussion, the group views a “closed generic 
>gTLD” as a “gTLD with exclusive registry access”, understood to be a 
>gTLD string that is a generic word or term under which domains are 
>registered exclusively by the registry operator, its affiliates, and 
>possibly other relevant entities as determined by subsequent policy 
>work.
>
>
>Please respond if you can live with this compromise. If you cannot, 
>please offer a detailed way forward.
>
Jeff:  I am ok with the initial bullet, but I am not sure why we have 
the sub-bullet.  I haven't compared the sub-bullet to the actual 
definition, and I would prefer to not have to.  The sub-bullet is not 
needed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Public Comment – staff proposed agreement in principle based on 31 May 
>call:
>
>
>
>Applications for closed generics gTLDs should be subject to the same 
>Public Comment period as all other gTLD applications. However, given 
>that closed generic gTLDs are uniquely impactful to the public 
>interest, the group acknowledges there should be more time dedicated to 
>their Public Comments if the number of these applications is 
>considerable. If there are more than 10 closed generic gTLD 
>applications, then the Public Comment period will be extended 
>automatically for 60 days solely for closed generic gTLD application 
>comments. This does not replace ICANN’s discretion to extend the Public 
>Comment period for all applications, and the 60-day extension will 
>apply to the full length of the Public Comment period (extended or 
>otherwise).
>In line with Implementation Guidance 13.6 from the New gTLD Subsequent 
>Procedures Final Report 
><https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf>(pg. 
>244), this implementation should enable the public to easily identify 
>and obtain information about applications for closed generic gTLDs. The 
>group agrees that there must be a centralized space where prospective 
>commenters can go to understand the rules for closed generic gTLDs and 
>view the applications themselves.
>Note: In arriving at this compromise approach to Public Comment, the 
>group acknowledges the unique nature inherent to closed generic gTLDs, 
>as well as the need for sufficient time for meaningful Public Comments, 
>and the public’s need to readily find all relevant information about 
>closed generic gTLD applications.
>
>
>Please respond if you can live with this compromise. If you cannot, 
>please offer a detailed way forward.
>

Jeff:  I believe the proposal from Sophie was for 30 days not 60 days 
and although Sophie threw out the number 10, I do not believe anyone 
really looked at that number.  I have no idea if the number should be 
10, 20, 50....the point is that the length of time of an extension and 
the amount of applications it would take to have that extension should 
not be something pulled out of thin air.   In addition, when deciding on 
the amount of time, people need to be looking at its impact of the 
overall process.  I would support saying that if there are above a 
certain number applications for Closed Generics (as determined in future 
work), then an automatic extension of a some period of days (as 
determined in future work), etc....

Also the language of "Solely for Closed Generics" is a little 
misleading.  The point was that the automatic entension would only apply 
to closed generics, but that does not mean it may not overlap with 
extensions of other public comment periods if the Org grants extensions 
for other reasons.

For example, If there are 20 applications for closed generics (and that 
is above the number for an extension), then for arguments sake an 
automatic extension of 30 days would be granted.  But if ICANN Org 
decides that because of the number of overall applications to also 
extend the general comment period as well by 30 days, that should not be 
interpreted as extending the comment period for closed generics by 60 
days.

I hope that makes sense.



>Agenda for 5 June 2023 at 12:30 UTC:
>
>Finalize Definition and Public Comment
>Review preliminary framework (Closed Generics Framework v4)
>Final call to determine if the group can live with the preliminary 
>framework document (Items 1 & 2)
>Discuss Closed Generics sessions at ICANN77
>
>
>
>
>
>
>As always, my sincere thanks for all your hard work.
>
>
>
>Melissa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Melissa Peters Allgood
>
>Conflict Resolution Specialist
>
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>Telephone:  +1 202 570 7240
>
>www.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230602/fd87addd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rnckifxr.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230602/fd87addd/rnckifxr-0001.png>