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

Thu Mar 2 00:20:44 UTC 2023

Hi Melissa,

I think we are missing a few Framing Questions that would provide 
immeasurable help to the Board, the GNSO, and the applicants and 
Evaluators to follow.

We seem to be missing a clear set of framing questions asking how the 
Applicant will know what it may apply for?  Plus, how will the public 
know what is and is not allowed as a Closed Generic gTLD?What is our 
recommendation, as part of the Framework to the Board and GNSO, about 
/what we consider and do not consider //to be a closed generic gTLD/? 
After all these years, clarity in our Framework is something we have a 
special opportunity and duty to provide.

I’ll add my new Framework questions with letters.

A. What is our definition of a Closed Generic gTLD for the Framework?

B. What is our definition of “serving the public interest," with 
specificity and detail for the Framework?

C. From our work and use cases, what specific examples can we provide 
for the Framework of the types Closed Generic applications to be 
considered *clearly in bounds*  and *clearly out of bounds*? (Let’s 
please save everyone enormous frustration, heartache, application fees 
and the cost of endless appeals by giving  both types of examples.)

Quick note:  Based on our many good faith discussions, I think we have 
converged on Use Cases that we clearly **/all agree/** are good Closed 
Generic gTLD applications (providing other appropriate conditions are 
met in the application and evaluation).  Plus, I think we have broad 
agreement on types of use cases that **should not be considered 
appropriate closed generic gTLD applications* in future rounds. Jason 
mentioned one recently (Mercedes-Benz applying for .CARS for its own use 
and no other car maker).

Jorge provided similar wording to /to /Asynchronous #8:"CG registry 
behaviors that under our Framework should be prevented or mitigated? 
That an individual player active on the market uses such a designation 
for his own purposes and not in the interest of the general public. Some 
of these designations could result in a significant competitive 
advantage and/or a monopoly position for the respective holder."

Our Framework Questions should call on us to share this information 
clearly with the Board and GNSO, future Applicants, Evaluators, and the 
Public.

Best and tx,

Kathy

> *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?
>
>  2. 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?
>
>  3. Beyond the standard application process, what additional process
>     steps must exist for a closed generic gTLD to go through?
>
>  4. How can the evaluator determine if the application should be granted?
>
>  5. 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230301/bc44cdc1/attachment-0001.html>