[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Summary Report for the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at dnrc.tech
Tue Mar 7 16:55:49 UTC 2023
Hi All,
Tx for everyone's close reading. My concern is 2nd para, page 2. It is a
summary of results of only one group, the last breakout session to
report. For 2 of the 3 breakout groups, if I remember correctly, we
found value in analyzing the Global Public Interest Framework and it
added some important dimensions to our thinking. We recognize that GPI
is an evolution of ICANN and part of the transition. Many of us found
our extensive GPI discussion useful and not to be dismissed (which may
not be the goal of the Summary, but it is what comes across).
One of our Board member observers, I think Alan, confirmed that the
Board looks at GPI now for its public policy review.
Thus, I don't understand what is mean by "but also somewhat limiting for
definitional purposes." [as above, many of us found the GPI to be
empowering and helping share a broader vision of the GAC Beijing Advice
and ICANN's mission goals.] I also would delete [, but also somewhat
limiting for definitional purposes. Rather, ... ]. Small but important
changes:
==> NEW: When thinking about what might constitute public interest
goals, the group found ICANN’s Global Public Interest (GPI) Framework
and Bylaws both to be useful tools. Th group believes it is possible for
a closed generic gTLD to serve a public interest goal that goes beyond
ICANN’s mission, and that there is value in public interest goals that
serve a very broad intended public as well as a targeted intended public.
/I think the paragraph above is the fairer and more positive
representation of our extensive work together on this important topic! /
==> OLD When thinking about what might constitute public interest goals,
the group found ICANN’s Global Public Interest (GPI) Framework and
Bylaws both to be useful tools, but also somewhat limiting for
definitional purposes. Rather, the group believes it is possible for a
closed generic gTLD to serve a public interest goal that goes beyond
ICANN’s mission, and that there is value in public interest goals that
serve a very broad intended public as well as a targeted intended public.
/Best, Kathy/
On 3/7/2023 6:45 AM, Nigel Hickson via gnso-gac-closed-generics wrote:
> Jeff; Jorge and colleagues
>
> Good morning; I share the concerns of Jorge here; not least that we
> did agree (at least provisionally) to the need for an applicant to
> start operations within a time frame; and we did agree
> (again provisionally) that the "Review" should look at whether the
> commitments entered into by the applicant (which include how they
> might use the name to fulfill a public interest goal) were being
> fulfilled.
>
> Agree with Jeef that "individual" could be left out (page 4) and that
> we should perhaps amend (but not delete) the sentence (highlighted
> below) concerning delegation; to reflect the "tests" which Jeff refers
> to;
>
> best
>
> Nigel
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 05:50, Jorge.Cancio--- via
> gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org> wrote:
>
> I don’t think I can agree with these „amendments“, especially
> regarding the obligation to start using the TLD in a given
> timeframe (where I felt broad consensus) and the review.
>
> On the review: The text does not say that the fulfilment of the
> public service goal will be the test, but that the „mechanisms“
> will be evaluated - and some form of linkage of such mechanisms
> and commitments with the public service goal is really needed to
> be required. Otherwise they lose their meaning.
>
> kindly
>
> Jorge
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> Datum: 7. März 2023 um 02:55:34 MEZ
> An: Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler at icann.org>,
> gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
> <gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Summary Report for the
> Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue
>
> 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><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><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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230307/be932ee3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list