[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work
Nigel Hickson
nigel.hickson at dcms.gov.uk
Wed May 10 12:27:03 UTC 2023
Good afternoon
Just to note full support for these views; would hope that in ur draft
Framework (as perhaps to a fina one) we would not have need for minority
comments;
best
Nigel
On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 09:31, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> Dear Melissa and All ..
>
>
>
> With apologies for the delay, here are my response:
>
>
>
> *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?
>
> To a certain extent. I think we need to agree on some basic terms (e.g.
> closed generic) to make sure we’re all on the same page, but we should try
> to keep definitions short, simple and not waste much time on them.
>
> - 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 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.”
>
> It's very helpful and serves as a good start though I would support
> deleting the “for example” part.
>
>
>
> 1. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline
> above? If so, what?
>
> I cannot think of any.
>
>
>
> 1. *Do you disagree* with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific
> minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
>
> No. I don’t disagree. But minority statements should be avoided to the
> extent possible and should not be used as an easy way out .. and if they
> exist, they should be annexed and not be part of the agreed framework, as
> they are ‘not agreed’ by definition.
>
>
>
> 1. After reviewing the calendar and remaining work, *do you agree* to
> add a 17 May call at 20:00 UTC?
>
> I don’t mind adding a call on 17 May. I would also like to note that I
> will be obliged to miss the one on 22 May at 20:00 UTC, as I will be on my
> way to the airport for a GAC Leadership Retreat in Brussels 23-27 May 2023.
> If I settle at the airport while the call is on, I will do my best to join.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-gac-closed-generics <
> gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Melissa Peters
> Allgood
> *Sent:* Friday, May 5, 2023 7:24 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230510/bcdffc18/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list