[gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Asynchronous Work
jeff at jjnsolutions.com
jeff at jjnsolutions.com
Tue May 23 15:33:56 UTC 2023
My comments are in Green below Sophie's.
------ Original Message ------
>From "Sophie Hey" <sophie.hey at comlaude.com>
To "Melissa Allgood" <melissa.allgood at icann.org>;
"gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org"
<gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org>
Date 5/17/2023 6:13:38 AM
Subject Re: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Asynchronous Work
>Hi Melissa,
>
>
>
>I have made my comments in-line below.
>
>
>
>Sophie Hey
>she/her
>Policy Advisor
>Com Laude
>T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
>Ext 252
>
><https://comlaude.com/>
>
>We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel
><https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADl_RQA0>
>.
>
>From: gnso-gac-closed-generics
><gnso-gac-closed-generics-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Melissa
>Peters Allgood
>Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:00 AM
>To:gnso-gac-closed-generics at icann.org
>Subject: [gnso-gac-closed-generics] Closed Generics Asynchronous Work
>
>
>
>Hello all,
>
>
>
>As promised, this email is intended to move our red line discussions
>forward asynchronously. Please review each red line section highlighted
>in yellow and respond to the corresponding questions highlighted in
>green. Please respond as soon as possible so that we may continue to
>plan focused discussions for upcoming calls.
>
>
>
>CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS FROM 10 MAY CALL
>
>
>
> Objective/Subjective
>
>Please review the language below, modified based upon your 10 May
>discussions (split into two distinct points):
>
>“The evaluation process and criteria must be clear, predictable, and
>objective to the greatest extend 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.”
>
>
>
>“The evaluation panel must determine whether each individual closed
>generic gTLD application sufficiently meets the criteria to pass
>Initial Evaluation. In the event that the evaluation panel receives
>more than one application for the same closed generic string, and
>determines that each application meets the criteria to pass Initial
>Evaluation, then the standard procedures of string contention
>resolution apply. “
>
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Do you disagree with moving the above language to the Closed Generics
>Framework v3 document
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>?
>Do not disagree
>
Jeff - Agree with concept, disagree with wording and
I put this as a comment already in v.3. So, we should state well above
this section the agreed upon concept that no priority is given to
strings that are eligible to operate as closed generics. If we do that,
then you will understand my rewording below which includes no change to
the first sentence.
“The evaluation panel must determine whether each individual closed
generic gTLD application sufficiently meets the criteria to pass Initial
Evaluation. In theory it is possible that there may be more than one
application for the same string that qualifies as an acceptable closed
generic. Because there is no priority offered to applications
qualifying as a closed generic, any application(s) that qualifies as a
closed generic will be in a contention set with an application for the
same string, whether that application seeks elibility as a closed
generic or not. In the event that the evaluation panel receives more
than one application for the same closed generic string, and determines
that each application meets the criteria to pass Initial Evaluation,
then the standard procedures of string contention resolution apply. “
I think this makes it a little more clear, right?
>
>
>
>
>If yes, why?
>
>
>
>
>ADDITIONAL RED LINES NEEDING MORE WORK
>
>
>
>Possible Threat/Risk Duplication
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>
>“Should the applicant also be asked to identify sector(s) of the public
>that may be disadvantaged by its operation of a closed gTLD and provide
>information about how it intends to address the issue?”
>
>
>
>Broadly agreed language found in the Closed Generics Framework v3 9.k
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>
>
>“Identify any threats or risks that could reasonably be posed if the
>closed generic gTLD is delegated, and specify the specific mitigating
>actions that the applicant plans to take to minimize these threats and
>risks.”
>
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Is the red line area of disagreement duplicative of the broadly agreed
>language?
> Yes, it is duplicative.
>
Jeff - I agree with Sophie.
>
>
>If not, how is the red line area of disagreement a distinct issue?
>
>
>Possible Duplication re: Explaining the Generic Term
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>
>“Specify how the string operates as a generic term in the context of
>the applicant’s business/activity.”
>
>
>
>Broadly agreed language found in Closed Generics Framework v3 9.e.
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>
>
>"Demonstrate the nexus (i.e. strong connection) between the applicant,
>the closed generic term being applied for, the public interest goal(s)
>specified in the application, and the applicant's intended use of the
>gTLD. The applicant must provide clear and concrete rationale for why
>the identified public interest goal(s) are best served through the
>operation of a closed generic gTLD."
>
>
>
>Broadly agreed language found in Closed Generics Framework v3 9.h.
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>
>“Explain what types of goods, services, groups, organizations,
>products, things, etc. are described by the generic term for which the
>applicant is applying.”
>
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Is the red line area of disagreement duplicative of the broadly agreed
>9.e. and/or 9.h. language?
> Yes, it is duplicative of both.
>
Jeff - Agree with Sophie.
>
>
>If not, how is the red line area of disagreement a distinct issue?
>
>
>
>
> Consumer Expectations
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>
>“Consumer expectations are a factor for consideration. The consumer
>needs to know their rights and responsibilities. Consumers need a fair
>way to redress issues, consumers have a responsibility to choose the
>right product, and consumers have an obligation to understand the terms
>and conditions.”
>
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Is this concept most appropriately addressed during post-delegation
>review?
>
>
>Does the following staff-proposed language address this point?
>“Pertaining to the registry’s commitment that the closed generic gTLD
>will not be used for fraudulent activity, the post-delegation review
>should consider whether the closed generic gTLD is being used to
>mislead end users of its domain names.”
>
>
>
>If the staff proposed language does not address this point, how does
>the red line area of disagreement fit into the framework?
>I don’t think this does fit into the framework. Perhaps it would be
>helpful to cross-reference SubPro recommendation 38.4
>(https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf
>p 183
><https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf%20p%20183>)
>instead of the current proposed text.
>
[Jeff[ Sound like a broken record, but agre with Sophie.
>
>
>
>
>Requirement to Consult Competitors Prior to Submission of an
>Application
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>
>“The application must show that significantly "interested parties,"
>including competitors, have been consulted and engaged for input prior
>to submission of the application.”
>
>
>
>Broadly agreed language in Closed Generics v3 9.f.1 and 2
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>
>reads:
>
>“Demonstrate the requirement of representativeness OR of non
>anti-competitive behavior.
>
>For “representativeness”, applicants must demonstrate that the
>applicant represents all or a significant part of the businesses (or
>has their agreement) in the industry or grouping related to the closed
>generic term.
>This criterion can be fulfilled, for example, by the applicant being
>an umbrella organization of the industry in question.
>For “non anti-behavior”, applicants must commit that its use of this
>closed generic gTLD will be consistent with principles of competitive
>neutrality, non-discrimination and transparency. This commitment must
>be reflected in the registry operator’s contract with ICANN, which may
>be in the form of a Code of Conduct or as part of a specification to
>the extent that one is developed to govern a registry operator’s use of
>a closed generic gTLD.”
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Would the “interested parties” red line language above apply to all
>closed generic gTLD applicants or just those who choose the
>“representativeness” track?
>The “interested parties” red line language should not apply to any
>closed generic gTLD applicants, and it would be commercially
>unreasonable to make this ask. It should definitely not apply to the
>non anti-competitive track.
>
[Jeff] Agree with Sophie.
>
>
>Do you disagree with including the red line language under the
>“representativeness” requirement?
>If the “interested parties” red line language has to be included, I can
>tolerate it in the “representativeness” requirement.
>
[Jeff[ Agree that the language is so unrealistic and unlikely, but like
Sophie, i can tolerate it in the representativeness requirement, but not
in the other.
>
>
>Use requirement
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>
>“The applicant must begin operating its closed generic gTLD (if
>approved) in the intended manner [within a set time frame].”
>
>
>
>During our 10 May call, there was broad agreement with this concept,
>but concerns about the bracketed text as well as ensuring the approach
>aligned with the work of SubPro were noted.
>
>
>
>Here is relevant information from the SubPro Final Report
><https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf>
>(page 191):
>
>Affirmation 40.1: The Working Group affirms Implementation Guideline I
>from 2007, which states: “An applicant granted a TLD string must use it
>within a fixed timeframe which will be specified in the application
>process.”
>Affirmation 40.2: The Working Group supports maintaining the timeframes
>set forth in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and base Registry Agreement;
>namely (i) that successful applicants continue to have nine (9) months
>following the date of being notified that it successfully completed the
>evaluation process to enter into a Registry Agreement, and (ii) that
>registry operators must complete all testing procedures for delegation
>of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) months of the
>Effective Date of the Registry Agreement. In addition, extensions to
>those time frames should continue to be available according to the same
>terms and conditions as they were allowed during the 2012 round.
>Rationale for Affirmations 40.1 and 40.2:
>
>Although some members of the Working Group were in favor of trying to
>further define what it means to “use” a TLD, the Working Group
>ultimately affirms the existing definition for “use” of a gTLD (namely,
>delegation into the root and meeting all other contractual commitments
>with respect to required content) . It believes that as was the case in
>the 2012 round, there should be a specified timeframe in which the gTLD
>should be used. Further the Working Group believes that the timeframes
>for gTLD rollout from the 2012 round continue to be appropriate in
>subsequent rounds. ....
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Bearing in mind the relevant information from the SubPro Final Report,
>does the following suffice:
>“The applicant must begin operating its closed generic gTLD (if
>approved) in the intended manner.”
>
> Yes, this suffices. If anything is to be added, it should be a
>reference to Affirmations 40.1 and 40.2.
>
[Jeff[ Agreed. This was more than addressed by SubPro.
>
>
>If not, why not and what do you propose?
>
>
>Anti-Competitive Concerns vs. Exclusive Closed Nature of Generic gTLD
>
>The following has been identified as a red line area of disagreement:
>“Evaluators should balance anti-competition concerns against the
>exclusive nature of a closed generic gTLD. For example, the stated
>public interest goal should outweigh what the anti-competitive risk
>might be.”
>
>
>
>Areas for consideration:
>
>If this red line were to only apply to the “non anti-competitive”
>track, it is potentially duplicative of Closed Generics Framework v3
>9.f.2
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>:
>“Demonstrate the requirement of representativeness OR of non
>anti-competitive behavior…..
>For “non anti-competitive behavior”, applicants must commit that its
>use of this closed generic gTLD will be consistent with principles of
>competitive neutrality, non-discrimination and transparency. This
>commitment must be reflected in the registry operator’s contract with
>ICANN, which may be in the form of a Code of Conduct or as part of a
>specification to the extent that one is developed to govern a registry
>operator’s use of a closed generic gTLD.
>
>· This criterion builds on the requirements that applicants of
>closed generic gTLDs must state their public interest goal(s) and
>intended purpose for the gTLD, and the intended purpose(s) must not be
>to solely exclude other parties from using the gTLD or to serve the
>applicant’s own commercial interests.
>
>· In addition, the group recognizes that the nature of a closed
>generic gTLD involves exclusive registry access to second-level domains
>under that gTLD string. The group affirms that this criterion is
>intended to ensure that an applicant does not misuse its control of a
>closed generic gTLD to undermine the public interest.
>
>· 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.”
>
>
>
>If “anti-competition concerns” identified in the red line text applies
>more broadly to “threats and risks” language found in Closed Generics
>Framework v3 9.k., then this issue could be rephrased as follows:
>“Evaluators should balance the identified threats and risks against the
>proposed mitigating actions and public interest goal(s) of the closed
>generic gTLD. The applicant’s public interest goal(s) and mitigating
>actions should outweigh what the identified threats and risks are.”
>
>
>Questions:
>
>Is the red line language duplicative of broadly agreed language about
>“non anti-competitive behavior” discussed above?
> Yes, the red line language is duplicative of 3.9.f.2.
>
>Should the issue addressed by the red line language be rephrased into
>“threats and risks” as detailed above?
> No. Given it is duplicative of 3.9.f.2, it should be struck for
>redundancy.
>
[Jeff] Agree with Sophie on both.
>
>
>If you believe the red line language belongs somewhere other than the
>options above, please explain in detail.
>
>
>
>
>Finally, please continue to review Closed Generics Framework v3.
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0Nb9_CJ-6R_ZF4bt9wbkzxLhMKu64aKY_vzS3QixgQ/edit>
>For those who have raised “notable concerns” for various points
>(captured in the Participant Red Line Table
><https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Iw5dya1WywzeuVBjBfSYDQ80MT-2wCJNPbeNl4kbzw/edit>),
>please share your proposed solutions in comments on the Closed Generics
>v3 document. Please refrain from editing directly into this document .
>
>
>
>Our next call is 15 May at 12:30 UTC. Our agenda is as follows:
>
>Red line discussion: Application Comment/Objections/Evaluation
>Challenges
>Red line discussion: Scoring System
>Red line discussion: Necessary
>Additional red line issues, time allowing
>
>
>I recognize I’m asking you to engage in a lot of asynchronous work. We
>are in the final days and our deadline is fast approaching. Thank you
>for sticking with this effort.
>
>
>
>Melissa
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
>intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received
>this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and
>permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the
>“Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and
>it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any
>attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for
>statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
>the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a
>limited company registered in England and Wales with company number
>10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London,
>WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com
>Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number
>5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London,
>WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and
>Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little
>Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company
>registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered
>office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a
>corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal
>office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave,
>Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered
>in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at
>1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP
>S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at
>Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see
>www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230523/9624d4c0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gqxhkivk.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230523/9624d4c0/gqxhkivk-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18901 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230523/9624d4c0/image001-0001.png>
More information about the gnso-gac-closed-generics
mailing list