[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Thu Feb 20 17:39:01 UTC 2020

Thank you Justine.  This is very constructive.  We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms.  Private dispute resolution process?  Filing a complaint with ICANN?  Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor?  Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements?  Would appreciate your further thoughts.
Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following:

Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions:

(1)  to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest;
(2)  which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry);
(3)  which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and
(4)  to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA.

the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA.


On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
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.


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.

Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
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.


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200220/b8c6751f/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list