[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
h.raiche at internode.on.net
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Tue Feb 25 23:49:03 UTC 2020
Just a few thoughts on this string.
Phil, if you want PIR to go broke, that would be a good way of doing
it. (and since ISOC gets its funding from PIR, I"m not sure that would
please everyone.)
Next, what is the nature of the current licensees of
registrars/resellers of .org? Are they confined to Not-For-Profits (
NFPs)? If not, should we now push for confining use of .ORG to only
NFPs - in which case, there are many variants of what constitutes a
NFP, depending on the jurisdiction you are in - so what test should be
used?
Next question - how to define public interest - a very relevant
question if you support Alan's proposals (and I largely do) in
determining whether or not the applicant should be able to use .org
And Phil/Justine's proposal - I wish I had the faith in Contractual
Compliance that would be necessary to ensure compliance with proposed
rules. If not Compliance as an enforcement mechanism, then unless an
arbitration system is set up to deal with the issues, the cost to any
individual with standing will be prohibitive. Which raises another
point - third parties to a contract (everyone else) do not have
'standing'- the right to have a court enforce a contract - to
enforce contractual rules - the RA..
And PICs - much of the above commentary applies. Unless the PIC is
part of the RA (i.e., it is more than a nice, warm fuzzy sounding
promise - fingers crossed) it is not enforceable at all. And if it
IS part of the RA, then Contractual Compliance is the the only other
party to that contract, so it would be up to Compliance - and they
REALLY need to lift their game, in that case.
I"m not saying proposals won't work - just that we need to recognise
some real issues being raised
Holly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Buckingham"
To:"Justine Chew"
Cc:"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
Sent:Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:46:25 +0000
Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion.
The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous
in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going
ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case
, New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest
TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will
incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately
my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding ,
incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “
that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to
employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs ,
no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The
Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special
resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew wrote:
Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual
Compliance topic.
Justine
-----
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne 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 ON BEHALF OF Justine Chew
SENT: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM
TO: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [4]
SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
[EXTERNAL]
-------------------------
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 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 [6]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [7]
_______________________________________________
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 [8]) and the website Terms of
Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [9]). 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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [10]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [11]
_______________________________________________
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 [12]) and the website Terms of
Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [13]). 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.
Links:
------
[1] mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com
[2] mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com
[3] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
[4] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[5] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[6] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[7] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
[8] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
[9] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
[10] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[11] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
[12] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
[13] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200226/51c42e56/attachment.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list