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

Tue Mar 7 21:11:50 UTC 2023

Jeff cc as above

Good evening; whilst fully sharing your view that the commitments we place
on an applicant cannot be subjective (like your example re carbon footprint
of flower shops) is it not possible to at least know if a closed generic
name is "live" or not.  I think, if we find a way of judging this important
requirement (that the name is being used) then we should use it, even if
not in SubPro.

best

Nigel

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 17:50, Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> On the usage requirement, I specifically remember during DC pointing out
> that this was something that the SubPro group did not believe was
> enforceable for any TLDs including brands and communities, etc.  This is
> because there are so many factors that go into the timing of usage.  Not to
> mention, what does it mean to actually “use a TLD.”  Does it mean 1
> registered name? 5 registered names? Does it mean doing everything?  And
> what is a fair time frame?  Bottom line is that Subpro couldn’t agree on
> any of this.  And my point was that we as a group have NOT agreed to this
> proposition.
>
>
>
> Second, I think we agree that a registry should perform its obligations
> under the Agreement.  For example, if it says it will only allow verified
> eco-friendly flower shops on its .flowershop, then that should be
> enforced.
>
>
>
> But if it says, we will only allow verified eco-friendly flower shops on
> .flowershop because it believes it will reduce the carbon footprint of
> flower shops by 10%, then:
>
>    1. The first obligation can be enforced as above.
>    2. But, you cannot find a registry in breach if it cannot prove that
>    .flowershop has reduced the carbon footprint of flower shops by 10%.
>
>
>
> As with all proposals, applicants will always indicate the “WHY” they want
> a TLD and what the hope they will accomplish.  But you can only enforce
> that the registry actually does what it says it will do…not whether what it
> says it will do (and does) will actually achieve the ultimate public
> interest goal.
>
>
>
> I hope that makes sense.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at dcms.gov.uk>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 6:45 AM
> *To:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Cc:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; christian.wheeler at icann.org;
> gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Summary Report for the Closed
> Generics Facilitated Dialogue
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230307/8241ad15/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/20230307/8241ad15/image001-0001.png>