[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics - Please Review and Respond
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at dnrc.tech
Sun Jun 4 15:15:51 UTC 2023
Melissa, You already have my response to the second comment period. I
add this:*
*
*/
/*
*/Definitions/*- Staff proposed agreement in principle based on 31 May call:
o 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.
o
As I look at the proposed new definition section, and the “closed
generic gTLD,” I am almost without words – almost.
Since the definition of “affiliate” first was thrown out in DC without
text or context, and without reference to its section in the /registrar
section/ of the Registry Agreement, numerous people have protested this
definition of “affiliate.”
But some pigs, as my students and George Orwell would say, are more
equal than others, and I can type until my hands are hurt (I’m getting
early stage of carpal tunnel), and Staff does not hear me – or any of us
in the Broad Agreement of concern.
Melissa, who is drafting this material?If there was any fairness in the
drafting, we would:
_a) Have a Framework__that clearly includes our most popular and favored
Use Cases, all ones with very Broad Agreement_ - .DONATION, .DISASTER,
.UKFLOWERSHOPS, .SIP [a protocol]. All independent entities – all not
“affiliates” under any possible definition of the registry agreement –
and all the best, more treasured examples to most of us.An example is
worth 1000 words – and we have asked you to write them into the
Framework again and again. /Where are these examples in our Framework?///
b) Have Jason’s “AND” included in a clear and define manner– not a vague
and undefined one.Jason asked /for a legitimate and strong AND that
embraces our Broad Agreement of Representativeness, including that
future closed generic gTLDs can be applied for and run by Trade
Associations and Membership Organizations on behalf of their
members.Other groups, like the International Red Cross and UK flower
shops, by our agreement, may run closed generic gTLDs on behalf of very
independent organizations and companies- with a common mission and
purpose//but not common ///
//
/c)/Have the AND that we need and that is right. The newly-drafted
version is not right: /“//and possibly other relevant entities as
determined by subsequent policy work/” [italics added]. _This
ill-drafted language means that a future PDP can define away and write
out Track One, Representativeness_, _which an integral part of our
Framework._ Unless the AND clause is clear, known, and comprehensive of
our Broad Agreement and Track One, Representativeness, there is no
Framework.////
Overall, Definitions are the foundation of any Framework. If we put in
an inaccurate, incomplete or too narrow definition – then the definition
represents only a fraction of our intended Closed Generic gTLD use cases
(as broadly agreed) - that’s all we will get and every future applicant,
Examiner and Objection Panelists will read the closed generic gTLD
definitions first, and write out the rest of it. If it’s not in there
now, it will never be.
---
* 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.
As for this section, where did it even come from?We have not just
“acknowledged that there are likely other entities beyond “Affiliates”
that would benefit from exclusive operation of a closed generic gTLD
with the registry,” we have *_Broadly Agreed that Are Other Entities
Beyond Affiliates that DO and WILL benefit from the exclusive operation
of a closed generic gTLD, which is Jorge and the GAC’s
REPRESENTATIVENESS TRACK (Track one)._*
Does the group with Broad Agreement have to shout again, and if so,
Melissa, how many times?
Plus, where does the “Generic String” section, Specification 11, Section
3(d) come from in our not-agreed understanding. It’s new and being added
in the 11^th hour and must not be. (Both Jeff and I, last week, both
thought you were trying to reference the second “affiliate” discussing,
the one in Specification 13 for .BRAND gTLD.)
But writing in this Generic String discussion now- when neither Sophie
nor I can agree on the intended – and unintended – consequences is not
right. There is no “shared understanding” and we have no time to
analyze, examine, research or brief how it will impact our Framework.
This is not a definition issue for us to decide, but one for ICANN’s
Lawyers to assess.(ICANN Counsel can determine whether this definition,
created very quickly by the Board for the broad purpose of throwing out
all closed generic gTLD applications in the first round needed more
careful evaluation and evaluation for the more delicate task of
evaluating closed generic gTLD applications in future rounds per the
Framework.)
As .BRAND created their own wrinkles and definitions in Specification
13, so too will Closed Generic gTLDs.This is an issue for ICANN Legal,
not for us.
This entire paragraph with its inaccurate reference to “other entities
beyond ‘Affiliates”” and “generic string” references is not a shared
understanding, is not broadly understand much less agreed upon (since we
are seeing some of it for the very first time). It must be deleted to
avoid intended – and unintended – consequences and to avoid an
“agreement” we simply don’t have. This paragraph has too much
unexamined, unagreed and actually wrong.
***
And thus my pen goes silent for some people’s pens in this group are
more equal than others, and mine does not count. I vote against this
Framework.
Kathy
On 6/1/2023 2:36 PM, Melissa Peters Allgood wrote:
>
> 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.
> o 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.
>
> */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).
> o 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.
> o 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.
>
> *To do:*
>
> 1. Respond to the proposed approach for Definition and Public Comment
> above
> 2. Review the Closed Generics Framework v4 document (s) – Edits
> Tracked
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nEy2mQm01ITo-ovxgIVQ0kNIpLqPV4bqVxTKgZb15vQ/edit>
> and/or Clean
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InSBpBSW-j2aVwsk59t-Hs2LfAhuEKNfiwkFoi3SYxU/edit>
>
> *Agenda for 5 June 2023 at 12:30 UTC:*
>
> 1. Finalize Definition and Public Comment
> 2. Review preliminary framework (Closed Generics Framework v4)
> 3. Final call to determine if the group can live with the preliminary
> framework document (Items 1 & 2)
> 4. 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 <http://www.icann.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230604/d52a0fcb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list