[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics - Please Review and Respond
Greg Shatan [NARALO]
gregshatanalac at gmail.com
Mon Jun 5 07:37:41 UTC 2023
Melissa and all,
My responses are in burnt sienna below.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Melissa Peters Allgood <
melissa.allgood at icann.org> 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.
> - 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.
>
>
I cannot live with this, nor does it seem like much of a compromise. I am
fine with leaving the contractual definition of "Affiliate" intact, but it
is too narrow for our purposes. Leaving everything beyond capital-A
"Affiliates" out of the mix, other than a vague and squishy "and possibly
other relevant entities as determined by subsequent policy work" misses the
point. I agree with Alan G. that we don't want to get bogged down with
drafting minutiae, but we need to leave sufficient instructions so our
intent is clear. Similarly, stating that "A future policy group should
consider incorporating this concept in its work" is far too weak. This is
a necessary concept, as many of our examples have demonstrated. Here's how
I would redraft the bullets (though I tend to agree with Jeff that the
second bullet may be surplusage, redundant, repetitive and adds nothing
new):
- 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. The group recognized the existing
definitions found in the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, including Section
2.9(c) (“Affiliate”) and Specification 11, Section 3(d) (“Generic
String”). The group agreed that there are other several relationships and
entities beyond the narrow definition of “Affiliates” that must be
included as potential registrants in a Closed Generic gTLD, depending on
the operational model of the gTLD. Specifically, the group identified (a)
members of a trade association, where the trade association is the registry
operator, (b) independent chapters that are members of a larger federation
or organization (e.g., Red Cross, Big Brothers & Big SIsters), where that
federation/organization [or a third party?] is the registry operator, (c)
members of a consortium of similar organizations, where the consortium or a
third party is the registry operator . The policy group that takes up the
Closed Generics issue may identify additional relationships and entities.
- 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 other relevant
entities including those above as well as others determined by subsequent
policy work.
>
>
>
> *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.
>
> This also misses the mark and does not provide anything close to the
> result being sought by a significant portion of the group. As such, I can't
> live with this either. What is needed is not merely the possibility of the
> hope of the potential of an extension of the initial "reveal day" triggered
> comments period. What is needed is a firm commitment to a greater
> opportunity to comment -- in the form of a second comment period for Closed
> Generics, to occur after GAC Early Warnings.
>
> The number of Closed Generics is not really relevant to whether a second
> period is needed (or even the extension of the first period) -- unless we
> have hundreds of Closed Generics, in which case even more time may be
> needed. The issue is not primarily that commenting organizations need time
> to sort through a plethora of applications; rather, the issue is that
> commenting organizations will need more time than is granted to consider
> whether and how to comment on the one, two or a few Closed Generic
> applications that will be relevant to it/them, to build awareness of the
> relevant application(s) and get buy-in from potential participants in a
> comment, and then to develop, write, circulate to what might be a
> substantial group of co-authors, get back comments, revise, recirculate,
> and finalize the comments. Underlying this is a belief that comments on
> Closed Generics are more like to come from organizations, associations, and
> groups of like-minded entities based on the very nature of the Closed
> Generic gTLD. That is why this treatment is critical and why it is sought.
>
Proposed revisions:
- Applications for closed generics gTLDs will 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 and
to the interests of multiple entities that may identify with a string,
the group acknowledges there should be more time dedicated to their Public
Comments. The Public Comment period will supplemented by an additional 60
day comment period solely for closed generic gTLD application comments,
to commence upon the submission of Early Warnings by the GAC and
its members.
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.
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
*Greg Shatan*
*Chair, NARALO*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230605/72b5b721/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list