[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

Jeff Neuman jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Wed Feb 26 17:31:09 UTC 2020


Holly,

Did you mean this note to be sent in response to this string?  I am not sure how this relates to PIR, but I may be missing something.

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

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of h.raiche at internode.on.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:49 PM
To: Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>; Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

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" <phil at dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil at dotadvice.co.uk>>

To:
"Justine Chew" <justinechew at gmail.com<mailto:justinechew at gmail.com>>
Cc:
"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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 <justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>> 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 <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
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 <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.

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<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<https://www.icannorg/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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200226/f5770722/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list