[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Summary Report for the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue

Tue Mar 7 01:36:44 UTC 2023

Thanks Christian.  Here are some comments:

  1.  Page 4 states:  “The group believes that a panel of individual evaluators may be best suited to make the decision about a closed generic gTLD application.”  What is a Panel of individual evaluators?  Does that mean a panel of 1 person?  Or does that mean something else?  In any case, I am not sure this distinction was discussed.  Perhaps just taking out the word “Individual”.

  1.  Also Page 4, it states: “Once a closed generic gTLD application is evaluated and found to have met all necessary criteria and processes for approval, the gTLD may proceed to delegation. However, the facilitated dialogue group agrees there should be additional requirements for closed generic gTLDs after they are delegated. For example, the registry operator must begin operating its closed generic gTLD in the intended manner within a set time frame.”

  *   First, I would take out the first sentence, because it oversimplifies what really happens.  It actually may be subject to objections, GAC Advice, etc…..and then it may have contention and if they survive that it needs to sign a contract, and pass pre-evaluation testing….. Its easier to eliminate the first sentence.
  *   Second, I do not remember ever agreeing that the registry operator must begin operating its closed generic gTLD I the intended manner within a set time frame.  We discussed it as a possibility, but I believe that does against the SubPro recommendation on all TLDs which only required strings to have the required elements (a NIC page and WHOIS page).  So I would strike that sentence.

  1.  I also do not know where this comment came from: “The review should mirror the objective and measurable commitments made by the applicant in its application. For example, the review could focus on how the applicant set out to achieve its goal of serving a public interest and evaluate the mechanisms that the applicant set forth to serve that public interest.”

  *   In fact, I remember making comments that were the opposite of this in the sense that the applicant should comply with the obligations it has in the agreement, but that there is no way to actually test whether complying with those obligations actually serves the public interest goal the applicant identified (which itself is incredibly subjective).
  *   Thus, lets say an applicant says it will do (a), (b) and (c) and it believes by doing that it will reduce spam, crime, or pick a cause.  And lets say it gets approved for the TLD based on its commitments.  If the applicant does (a), (b) and (c) as it promised it would do, but it turns out that it did not materially contribute to the cause, that is not something that can or should be held against the registry in any way.
  *   The next paragraph is right….the applicant must perform its obligations in the contract.  But whether that achieves the goal or not is not something for which the registry should be accountable (at least from a contractual perspective).  If people want to hold them accountable in the “court of public opinion” that is up to them.  But it should never be used to take away a contract.

Thank you for letting us review.

[cid:image001.png at 01D95069.C136EA10]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Christian Wheeler
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 6:59 PM
To: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Summary Report for the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue

Hello all,

Following on from today’s call, please review the attached Summary Report document (also found in your Shared Drive) and note on the mailing list any concerns you have with sharing this document with your communities.

Any concerns or objections should be submitted on the list by 22:00 UTC (5 pm EST) tomorrow, 7 March. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Christian (on behalf of the staff team supporting the facilitated dialogue)

-----
Christian Wheeler
Policy Development Support Analyst
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

From: Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler at icann.org<mailto:christian.wheeler at icann.org>>
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:45 AM
To: "gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org<mailto:gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>" <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org<mailto:gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>>
Subject: Summary Report for the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue

Hello all,

As mentioned in our previous call, staff has prepared a Summary Report document (attached) identifying several elements of a preliminary CG framework based on the group’s agreed shared understandings so far.

Please review the attached Summary Report document by 06 March, but do not share it with your communities yet.

The group will need to confirm this document’s readiness before it is shared with the community. Please flag on the mailing list any concerns about this Summary Report that you wish to discuss in our 06 March call (20 UTC). Thank you.

Kind regards,
Christian (on behalf of the staff team supporting the facilitated dialogue)

-----
Christian Wheeler
Policy Development Support Analyst
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230307/359607ba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230307/359607ba/image001-0001.png>