[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work

Thu May 11 06:11:25 UTC 2023

Hello,
My comments.
Arnaud

> Le 10 mai 2023 à 13:57, Merritt, Jason (ISED/ISDE) <Jason.Merritt at ised-isde.gc.ca> a écrit :
> 
> Good morning!
> Some responses for consideration.
> 
> Jason
> 
> QUESTIONS NEEDING YOUR  RESPONSE ON MAILING LIST
> Definitions and Policy/Implementation Questions
> Section II - Definitions (Pg.4)
> Question:  Are definitions a MUST include red line for you? Yes, but the text seems overly complicated and long. Could be streamlined. It makes sense to me we would have definitions of things like “closed generic”… Why have we not defined other critical elements like ‘public interest’?

> Yes definitely a must.

> 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. In fact could be the opposite (excluding would be a redline). I think the questions capture some key discussion points and reflect some thinking about complex issues we’ve been discussing.

+1. Agree with Jason point.

> 
> 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.” Seems tentatively okay… I don’t think we should include the “For example…” There has to be some subjectivity in the evaluation, otherwise it is a box checking exercise. This is not overly complicated. Just because you meet some objective eligibility criteria, doesn’t necessarily mean an evaluation would award you what you applied for (in this case a closed gTLD). There is always a discretionary and subjective assessment of an application.

> The evaluation criteria of a close generic cannot be determined sui generis but come -with the exception of certain general rules already mentioned- from the use that will be proposed by the applicant. It is therefore up to him to propose the criteria that will make the generic a close generic. This is how the evaluation can be objectified by the determination and commitment to follow clear, predictable and, in my opinion, objectively verifiable criteria. This is an integral part of the application process and must be fulfilled by the applicant.

> 
> Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline above? If so, what? Potentially.
> 
> Do you disagree with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework? No. Should be included as an annex. But if there are statements, can we really call it an “agreed framework”?

> No. +1 with Jason proposition.

> 
> After reviewing the calendar and remaining work, do you agree to add a 17 May call at 20:00 UTC?Sure.

> Not available. In plane for Taiwan.

> 
> 
> From: gnso-gac-closed-generics <gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Melissa Peters Allgood
> Sent: May 9, 2023 4:48 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
> 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.”
> 
> 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$>
> 
> 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:
> Explain why operating the gTLD as a closed generic gTLD best serves the public interest goal(s) identified in the application OR
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Possible Threat/Risk Duplication
> Explaining the Generic Term
> Consumer Expectations
> Consulting Competitors Prior to Submission of an Application
> 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
> 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?
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline above? If so, what?
> 
> Do you disagree with allowing narrowly tailored, element specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
> 
> 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/20230511/e320c1cc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230511/e320c1cc/signature-0001.asc>