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

[Melissa Peters Allgood]

Hello all,

Below you will find the three outstanding items from the Remaining Red Lines<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1smLEk84K113gSGEdM4b_o1VR0vMmJk4yIkmkxX4M6Zc/edit> table. Pursuant to your inputs at the end of our 24 May call, staff has taken all other items into the next version of your work. On the google drive you will find two versions of the same document: Closed Generics Framework v4–Edits Tracked<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nEy2mQm01ITo-ovxgIVQ0kNIpLqPV4bqVxTKgZb15vQ/edit> and Closed Generics Framework v4–Clean<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InSBpBSW-j2aVwsk59t-Hs2LfAhuEKNfiwkFoi3SYxU/edit>. We’ve created the clean version for ease of reading and ask the edits tracked version be used for inputs (in comments).

To do:

  1.  Each of the three red lines has a request highlighted in green. Please respond to this email with your inputs.
  2.  Review Closed Generics Framework v4-Edits Tracked<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nEy2mQm01ITo-ovxgIVQ0kNIpLqPV4bqVxTKgZb15vQ/edit> and/or Closed Generics Framework v4–Clean<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1InSBpBSW-j2aVwsk59t-Hs2LfAhuEKNfiwkFoi3SYxU/edit>.


Identifying Disadvantaged Sectors
Red line language:

  *   “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 in v3:
“7.l. 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.”

Proposal:  REPLACE broadly agreed language from v3 7.l with the following compromise:

  *   Identify sector(s) of the public that may be disadvantaged if the closed generic gTLD is delegated, as well as any threats or risks that could reasonably be posed, and detail the specific mitigating actions that the applicant plans to take to minimize these threats and risks.

  *   The applicant must make explicit commitment to the policies, rules or actions that the applicant will agree to take to minimize any threats or risks to the public or anti-competitive impacts by operation of the applied-for closed generic TLD.

Please respond if you can live with this compromise. If you cannot, please offer a way forward.




Definitions
In your asynchronous work, we saw general agreement that having a colloquial definition of “closed generic gTLD” would be helpful, so long as it is clear that this group is not creating policy through such use of such a colloquial definition. The term affiliates was flagged in the Remaining Red Lines document and staff suggests the additional language found in the last sub-bullet as a compromise path forward.

Proposed language:

  *   “For purposes of the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue, it was necessary for the group to have a shared understanding of concepts relevant to closed generic gTLDs. Bearing in mind relevant definitions found in the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, Section 2.9(c) and Section 11.3(d), the group agreed to the following colloquial definition of “closed generics.” Please note, this colloquial definition is not intended to impact any associated contractual definitions or control future policy work on this issue.

     *   A “closed generic gTLD”, sometimes described as a “gTLD with exclusive registry access”, is understood to be a gTLD representing a string that is a generic word or term under which domains are registered exclusively by the registry operator and its affiliates.”

        *   The group discussed examples where the term “affiliates” may benefit from the inclusion of entities with common charters or governing documents, but no decision was taken on this matter as it is beyond the scope of this group.

Please respond if you can live with the compromise. If you cannot, please offer a way forward.




Public Comment
During our 24 May call, the group continued discussion on this point. The group has broadly acknowledged the need for sufficient notice of an application for a closed generic gTLD and sufficient time for response. The group has broadly acknowledged significant delay to the initial evaluation could be problematic. The task before you is to identify a way forward.

Please respond with your proposed way forward on this issue.




I encourage you to continue your efforts to view the remaining work through a solution-oriented lens of collaboration and compromise.

Wishing you a wonderful weekend,
Melissa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-gac-closed-generics/attachments/20230526/4ab2458f/attachment-0001.html>