[gnso-gac-closed-generics] V3 of the Framework

[jeff at jjnsolutions.com]

All,

I have spent a bunch of time reviewing v.3 of the framework and I put a 
bunch of comments in.  I fought every urge I had to dispute what is in 
that framework and say I didnt like it, etc., and I did not do that (and 
believe me I wanted to ;)).

I do disagree with a bunch of it which is not a shocker...but those are 
not the comments I made.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Rather my comments fall into a couple of different camps:

1.  There is a tremendous amount of duplication in the framework and you 
will see it too now that it is in one clean document.

2.  There are many statements in the framework that are incredibly 
confusing because they have absolutely no context.  Even I was confused 
on a bunch of them as to what we were trying to say....and I have lived 
and breathed SubPro for more than a decade now!

3.  Related to the lack of context is the lack of organization in the 
framework now.  Parts of the framework need to be moved to avoid 
duplication or provide the context that is needed.

4.  Also related to lack of context is what we expect someone will do 
with the statement in the framework.
  - Example: "5.  There is value in public interest goal(s) that serve a 
very broad intended public. There is also value in public interest 
goal(s) that serve a targeted intended public." ok...so what? #4 says 
that you cant use it for illegal purposes and #6 says public interest is 
broader than the ICANN GPI Framework. And what is the next group that 
develops the policy supposed to do with this? How does this guide them 
in their work?

5. Also, now because of the lack of context, it seems like we have 
conflicting requirements:

Example:  In 7(g)(2), bullet 2 states: "The group also affirms that 
exclusive registry access and single entity control of a closed generic 
gTLD does not, in and of itself, violate the principles of competitive 
neutrality, non-discrimination or transparency." But 2 bullets later it 
states: "Evaluators should bear in mind the exclusive nature of a closed 
generic gTLD when considering anti-competition concerns."
How can we state on the one hand the very nature of the gTLD should not 
be considered to be anti-competitive, but then state that evaluators 
should bear in mind the very nature of the closed gTLD when considering 
whether it is anti-competitive? How is anyone supposed to interpret 
that?

6. Some statements are just awkwardly worded and should be fixed such 
as:
- #9. Commitments–including those related to how the public interest 
will be served–made by an applicant during the application and 
evaluation phases of a closed generic gTLD application must be 
enforceable by ICANN.

- This makes it sound like we are expecting ICANN to enforce the 
commitments themselves rather than what I think we mean which is that 
ICANN must be able to hold the registry accountable for implementing the 
commitments it made. This distinction is important for ICANN when 
looking at what it can do within its mission.

IN SUM:  Please read v3 carefully with an eye on "will the next group 
understand exactly what we mean in these statements".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230523/d55cbd7c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ee1jdzec.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230523/d55cbd7c/ee1jdzec-0001.png>