<div dir="ltr">Jeff <div><br></div><div>Good morning; thank you for your hard work here; much food for thought; </div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div><br></div><div>Nigel </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 03:30, <a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a> <<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg-6711396215638951669">
<div><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>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 ;)).</div><div><br></div><div>I do disagree with a bunch of it which is not a shocker...but those are not the comments I made.</div><div>______________________________________________________________________________________</div><div>Rather my comments fall into a couple of different camps:</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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!</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>4. Also related to lack of context is what we expect someone will do with the statement in the framework.</div><div> - Example: "5. <span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial">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." <i>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? </i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial"><i><br></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial"><i>5. </i>Also, now because of the lack of context, it seems like we have conflicting requirements:</span></div><div><br></div><div><i>Example: In 7(g)(2), bullet 2 states: "</i><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap"><i>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."</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap">
<b>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?</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap"><b><br></b></span></div><div><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:14.6667px;white-space:pre-wrap">6. Some statements are just awkwardly worded and should be fixed such as:</span></font></div><div><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:14.6667px;white-space:pre-wrap"> - #9. </span></font><span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial"><i>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.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial"><i><br></i></span></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap;font-family:Arial"><i> - </i>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. </span></div>
<div><br></div><div>IN SUM: Please read v3 carefully with an eye on "will the next group understand exactly what we mean in these statements".</div><div id="m_-6711396215638951669signature_old" style="clear:both"><div><br></div><img src="cid:1884797809969464ee81" border="0"></div><div><br></div>
</div>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-gac-closed-generics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-gac-closed-generics@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-gac-closed-generics@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-gac-closed-generics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-gac-closed-generics</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</div></blockquote></div>