[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Planning and Asynchronous Work [earlier]
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Mon May 15 01:21:01 UTC 2023
Adding my comment atop Arnaud's and Jason's. In*purple. *
Best, Kathy*
*
On 5/11/2023 2:11 AM, Arnaud Franquinet wrote:
> 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*
>>
>> 1. Definitions and Policy/Implementation Questions
>>
>> o 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.
>> *Yes, per my earlier email. *
>
>> +
>>
>>
>> + 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.
>>
>> o 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.
>> *Agree with Jason and Arnaud. *
>
>
>> +
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. What is your response to the staff proposed language on the
>> Objective/Subjective issue?
>>
>> o “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.
>> *Agree with Jason that we should not include the "For example." **I
think Melissa has floated different language on this issue based on our
discussion on Wednesday. Basically, I think we are in the same place on
clear and predictable language, but we each have different definitions
and meanings for objection/subjective. I like the one from Government
Contracting that Greg shared. Perhaps best just to leave out both terms:
objection and subjective. Let's let the application and evaluation
criteria speak for itself. *
>>
>> o **
>>
>> 3. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline
>> above? If so, what?*Potentially.*
>>
>> 4. */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.
>
>*> +2 Jason and Arnaud.*
>
>> 4.
>>
>>
>> 5. 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.
>> *I'll be in California, and will work hard to attend. *
>
>> 5.
>>
>>
>> *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> on behalf of Melissa
>> Peters Allgood <melissa.allgood at icann.org>
>> *Date:*Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:24 PM
>> *To:*"gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org"
>> <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 INDISCUSSION 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
>>
>> o We will continue our red line questions for this section
>> during our 10 May call.
>>
>> * Section II - Definitions (Pg.4)
>>
>> o 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)
>>
>> o 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.”
>>
>> 2. */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$>
>>
>> 3. */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.
>>
>> 4. */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/*
>>
>> 2. */Explaining the Generic Term/*
>>
>> 3. */Consumer Expectations/*
>>
>> 4. */Consulting Competitors Prior to Submission of an Application /*
>>
>> 5. */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:
>>
>> o If you support the final framework, including with minority
>> statements narrowly tailored to specific elements OR
>> o 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
>>
>> o 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.
>>
>> o 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?
>>
>> 2. What is your response to the staff proposed language on the
>> Objective/Subjective issue?
>>
>> o “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.”
>>
>> 3. Are red lines needing further discussion missing from the outline
>> above? If so, what?
>>
>> 4. */Do you disagree/*with allowing narrowly tailored, element
>> specific minority statements as part of an agreed framework?
>>
>> 5. 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230514/752b3dbd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list