[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

[Alan Greenberg]

While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my 
proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small 
number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs 
that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be 
true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the 
applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a 
large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.

The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. 
This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.

Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being 
scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.

To make my position clear, other than this special case I am 
proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.

Alan


At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
>
>One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to 
>closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that 
>a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example 
>of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
>
>I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the 
>decision on whether a particular application would move forward or 
>not would rest with the ICANN Board.
>
>The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at 
>least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD 
>would be in the public interest.
>
>The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN 
>Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would 
>require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision 
>from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an 
>amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there 
>is a current precedent.
>
>If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near 
>unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this 
>matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered 
>Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw 
>change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
>
>This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in 
>the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
>
>Alan