[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work
Sophie Hey
sophie.hey at comlaude.com
Tue May 9 13:56:40 UTC 2023
Hi Melissa,
I have set out my answers to the questions below:
1. Definitions and Policy/Implementation Questions
* Section II - Definitions (Pg.4)
* Question: Are definitions a MUST include red line for you?
* If not, the issues you've raised can be included in an annex to the framework with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of the group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised.
My redline is "no definitions". My preference would be to not even have an annex.
* Other Policy and Implementation questions (Pg. 10, 13, & 14)
* Question: Is including these as an annex to the framework, with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of this group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised, a MUST NOT include red line for you?
Including these as an annex to the framework is a MUST NOT redline for me.
1. What is your response to the staff proposed language on the Objective/Subjective issue?
* "The evaluation process and criteria must be clear, predictable, and objective to the greatest extent possible. The evaluation must be predictable such that a potential applicant can reasonably assess their likelihood of qualifying for a closed generic gTLD, with the understanding that evaluation panelists will use their professional judgement when evaluating applications. This judgement must be within predictable parameters and well-justified. For example, evaluators should not determine that one public interest goal is worthier than another, nor require that a closed generic gTLD be used in one particular way, so long as the public interest requirements are fulfilled."
Fine with this language.
1. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline above? If so, what?
Have not identified any at the moment.
1. Do you disagree with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
Do not disagree.
1. After reviewing the calendar and remaining work, do you agree to add a 17 May call at 20:00 UTC?
Yes, agree to add a call on 17 May 2000 UTC
Sophie Hey
she/her
Policy Advisor
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 252
[cid:image001.png at 01D9826F.B234B640]<https://comlaude.com/>
We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADl_RQA0>
From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Melissa Peters Allgood
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 5:24 PM
To: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work
Hello all,
Within this email you will find a number of questions on various topics that need your response. I repeat them in a focused manner near the bottom in an attempt to support your response to all questions.
PLAN FOR REMAINING WORK IN DISCUSSION DRAFT v2<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wtLVcyWhyrCaYl1iqlAncaIyrqpS--0aPCTjpwMue7I/edit>
* Section V - Contracting and Post-Delegation
* We will continue our red line questions for this section during our 10 May call.
* Section II - Definitions (Pg.4)
* Please respond to the following:
* Question: Are definitions a MUST include red line for you?
* If not, the issues you've raised can be included in an annex to the framework with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of the group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised.
* Other Policy and Implementation questions (Pg. 10, 13, & 14)
* Please respond to the following:
* Question: Is including these as an annex to the framework, with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of this group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised, a MUST NOT include red line for you?
KEY RED LINES NEEDING MORE DISCUSSION
1. Objective/Subjective
Staff has attempted to encapsulate comments from our last call. Please review the language below and respond to this email with feedback.
"The evaluation process and criteria must be clear, predictable, and objective to the greatest extent possible. The evaluation must be predictable such that a potential applicant can reasonably assess their likelihood of qualifying for a closed generic gTLD, with the understanding that evaluation panelists will use their professional judgement when evaluating applications. This judgement must be within predictable parameters and well-justified. For example, evaluators should not determine that one public interest goal is worthier than another, nor require that a closed generic gTLD be used in one particular way, so long as the public interest requirements are fulfilled."
1. Application Comment/Objections/Evaluation Challenges
Here you will find two documents that detail these procedures. Both documents are also found in your google drive. I ask you review these and come prepared for a focused discussion on what, if anything, is missing.
Background on Application Comment, Objections, and Evaluation Challenges in the new gTLD program.<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bdXX5p8LsHmOMZBkNuaCW1CRXT1dZ_APIIO08iG4CQg/edit#slide=id.g23e9a59d31c_0_0>
2012 AGB Draft Process Flow<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ADxIsih3dRLJUk9PVA>
1. Necessary vs. Best Served/Useful/Important
The following emerged an area of clear red lines:
"Explain why it is [necessary] to operate the gTLD as a closed generic gTLD in order to serve the public interest goal(s) identified in the application. Considering that it may never be strictly "necessary" to operate a closed generic gTLD, should the applicant instead explain why it is "useful" or "important" in order to serve their identified public interest goal(s)?"
Staff has proposed two alternatives for your consideration:
1. Explain why operating the gTLD as a closed generic gTLD best serves the public interest goal(s) identified in the application OR
2. Explain why it is necessary, useful, or important to operate the gTLD as a closed generic gTLD in order to serve the public interest goal(s) identified in the application.
We will engage in a focused discussion on this topic in an upcoming call.
1. Scoring System
We will engage in a focused discussion of this concept in an upcoming call.
OTHER RED LINES NEEDING MORE WORK
NOTE - I am not asking you respond to these questions in this email. These are highlighted as areas for future discussions.
1. Possible Threat/Risk Duplication
1. Explaining the Generic Term
1. Consumer Expectations
1. Consulting Competitors Prior to Submission of an Application
1. Application Change Requests
MINORITY STATEMENTS ACCOMPANYING AN AGREED FRAMEWORK
During our last call, we touched upon the concept of minority statements within an otherwise agreed framework. This suggestion comes as the result of discussions where I've heard a need to highlight specific areas of caution or concern within an overall agreement. Minority statements under these parameters might provide greater clarity as an agreed framework moves into a policy development process.
MAY PLANNING
10 May at 12:30 UTC
* Discussion Draft v2: Red line questions for Section V - Contracting and Post-Delegation
* Red line discussion: Objective/Subjective
* Red line discussion: Application Comment/Objections/ Evaluation Challenges, time allowing
* After this call, I will ask you work asynchronously to identify possible solutions to your Notable Concerns within the v3 document and I will provide more detail about our approach to the other red line issues.
15 May at 12:30 UTC
* Red line discussion: Application Comment/Objections/Evaluation Challenges
* Red line discussion: Scoring System
* Red line discussion: Necessary
* Other red line issues, time allowing
* You will continue to work asynchronously identifying solutions to your Notable Concerns within the v3 document
17 May at 20:00 UTC - We need to consider adding a call here
* We would use this time to begin discussions currently scheduled for 22 May
22 May at 20:00 UTC
* Other red line issues
* Notable concern matters in v3
25 May - on the mailing list
* Agreed framework is finalized and shared for your review
* Narrowly tailored minority statements objecting to specific elements of the framework may be included with an agreed final framework.
31 May at 20:00 UTC
* Group reviews final framework including minority statements
* You will each decide:
* If you support the final framework, including with minority statements narrowly tailored to specific elements OR
* If you do not support the final framework
NOTE - as it stands now, this schedule likely doesn't allow for additional discussion on definitions should that be a must include red line for you.
QUESTIONS NEEDING YOUR RESPONSE ON MAILING LIST
1. Definitions and Policy/Implementation Questions
* Section II - Definitions (Pg.4)
* Question: Are definitions a MUST include red line for you?
* If not, the issues you've raised can be included in an annex to the framework with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of the group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised.
* Other Policy and Implementation questions (Pg. 10, 13, & 14)
* Question: Is including these as an annex to the framework, with the understanding that they do not reflect agreement of this group but rather encapsulate discussions and issues raised, a MUST NOT include red line for you?
1. What is your response to the staff proposed language on the Objective/Subjective issue?
* "The evaluation process and criteria must be clear, predictable, and objective to the greatest extent possible. The evaluation must be predictable such that a potential applicant can reasonably assess their likelihood of qualifying for a closed generic gTLD, with the understanding that evaluation panelists will use their professional judgement when evaluating applications. This judgement must be within predictable parameters and well-justified. For example, evaluators should not determine that one public interest goal is worthier than another, nor require that a closed generic gTLD be used in one particular way, so long as the public interest requirements are fulfilled."
1. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline above? If so, what?
1. Do you disagree with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
1. After reviewing the calendar and remaining work, do you agree to add a 17 May call at 20:00 UTC?
This email covers a lot of ground, so please feel free to reach out with questions.
Wishing you all a lovely weekend,
Melissa
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the "Com Laude Group") does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230509/1cc2fd36/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18901 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230509/1cc2fd36/image001-0001.png>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list