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

Tue Mar 7 17:04:49 UTC 2023

Hi Jeff,

Tx you for your close analysis, but I do not agree with #3 below.  I do 
know where this comment comes from (page 4): “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.”

==> We are looking to see what representations a applicant/future 
registry operator is making in terms of how it will use the gTLD. We are 
currently working on the Framework of the Application and Evaluation. 
What the applicant says should be true and verifiable, as with .Brand 
and Community applications.

==> We are still discussing where and how to embody it in the contract. 
Like Specification 13 created by and for .BRANDS, we have discussed and 
will continue to discuss the need for a Specification for future Closed 
Generic gTLDs to lay out their responsibilities and benefits. It's the 
precedent.

===> We are going to a lot of work to create an application process and 
evaluation that are measurable and meaningful. It's key to much of the 
good faith, hard work we are doing and have done.

Best, Kathy

On 3/6/2023 8:36 PM, Jeff Neuman wrote:
>
> 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”.
>
>  2. 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.
>
>  3. 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.
>
>     	
>
>     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 <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>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:45 AM
> *To: *"gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org" 
> <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 severalelements 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 withthe community. Please flagon 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230307/3c354b0f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230307/3c354b0f/image001-0001.png>