[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work
philippe.fouquart at orange.com
philippe.fouquart at orange.com
Tue May 9 16:22:21 UTC 2023
Thanks Melissa. Here's my responses.
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?
* > no they are not. They're just nice-to-have's in terms of conveying at least some understanding of what the terms meant for the group collectively, as well as potential points of divergence.
* 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?
* > no it's not, I think it's a good idea.
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."
> I'm fine with the suggested text.
1. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline above? If so, what?
No there aren't (I'm not enthralled at the notion of the process ultimately being "objective to the greatest extent possible", but read this more as guidance to the next stage, not necessarily a depiction of the end-product)
1. Do you disagree with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
'Disagree' would be strong, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea: the notion of scoring minority statements wasn't quite in the spirit of the dialogue in the first place imho, which doesn't prevent divergences of views on how the framework translates into policy to be recorded, and left as food for thought for those who will take over.
1. After reviewing the calendar and remaining work, do you agree to add a 17 May call at 20:00 UTC?
I do
Regards,
Philippe
Orange Restricted
From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Melissa Peters Allgood
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:48 AM
To: gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work
Hello all,
Please review and respond to the email below.
See you tomorrow at 12:30 UTC,
Melissa
From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Melissa Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood at icann.org<mailto:melissa.allgood at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:24 PM
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: [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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1wtLVcyWhyrCaYl1iqlAncaIyrqpS--0aPCTjpwMue7I/edit__;!!PtGJab4!4BMhjvQA-LvN9hkN7vZRiTWZH4Ej3Iwjp_vM-0L5FN8bMCV_eUw_zF8Ibl9aluEz2FrVgwxlPwNdhcCygzHXyf4rfcPP9Jl1O0zOTg$>
* 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. [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bdXX5p8LsHmOMZBkNuaCW1CRXT1dZ_APIIO08iG4CQg/edit*slide=id.g23e9a59d31c_0_0__;Iw!!PtGJab4!4BMhjvQA-LvN9hkN7vZRiTWZH4Ej3Iwjp_vM-0L5FN8bMCV_eUw_zF8Ibl9aluEz2FrVgwxlPwNdhcCygzHXyf4rfcPP9JnK0Xt9pw$>
2012 AGB Draft Process Flow [drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/drive.google.com/drive/folders/0ADxIsih3dRLJUk9PVA__;!!PtGJab4!4BMhjvQA-LvN9hkN7vZRiTWZH4Ej3Iwjp_vM-0L5FN8bMCV_eUw_zF8Ibl9aluEz2FrVgwxlPwNdhcCygzHXyf4rfcPP9JlBwHrDcA$>
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230509/0f5c479e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list