[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

[Jeff Neuman]

Thanks Alan for this clarification and I apologize that there is a conflict in times.  That said, can you provide some rationale for why only non-profits can propose applications that serve a public interest?  I can probably guess the answer, but it would be better if you explained in your own words.

Thanks again for the proposal.

Best regards,

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 5:48 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
________________________________
 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 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 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 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>