[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Feb 25 01:30:25 UTC 2020

Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance


On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Anne
> *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.
> Justine
> -----
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <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.
> 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.
> ------------------------------
> 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/20200225/f1faab96/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list