[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Fri Jul 10 16:35:44 UTC 2020


Hi All,

 

We do not anticipate the opening of the application window before end of
2022, right? That's in one and a half years! The board clearly demanded that
we create policy in regards to "closed generics": Not just look over the
2012 AGB - but engage in a full blown GNSO Policy Development Process for
this tiny item! Have we really done this OUTSIDE of the 2012 AGB revision?
We could finalize our 2012 AGB revision and keep this little item "open" -
and in parallel start to do the job the board asked us to do. There are 1.5
years. For such a minor question. 

 

I say: Keep this tiny topic out of the final report; bring together the old
band and do the job we are tasked to do. This time there HAS to be a
decision: this is a clear mandate to either allow closed generics or not.
There is no "fallback solution": this hasn't been clarified in the 2007 PDP
- we will have to do it now. It's not part of the 2012 AGB revision - it's
outside of that scope.

 

Could somebody remind me how a formal GNSO PDP is being launched, who is
eligible to launch one, what the formal procedures are? Just let's do it.
The ICANN Overlords commanded us - we have to deliver. 

Meanwhile: This impacts a very tiny portion of the applicant community. If
we do NOT clarify this question with a full blown GNSO PDP then we hurt the
applicants that are inclined to try their luck again: they risk a board
rejection all over again. Not fair to them. This is meant to be decided by
the COMMUNITY - not the board.

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2020 19:41
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics

 

All,

 

There has been some good conversation on Closed Generics and specifically
making sure that we stay completely factual.  In light of the e-mails from
Paul, Kathy, Anne and others, I wanted to present some text to replace part
(a) of the Closed Generics section.  That text is below.  A couple of notes
first.

 

1.	The materials produced by the Working Group are intended to be as
objective as possible and not advocacy pieces for one side or the other. I
ask that you look at it for its accuracy and not whether the language makes
your position look good or not.
2.	The Chairs have not cut off any discussions on this topic at all.
If you really believe this to be the case, you are free to report this to
the GNSO Council Liaison to escalate.  But to make it clear, leadership has
assessed that this Working Group is not able to come to agreement on either
the substance of this issue, or even on what the default/status quo would
be.  And the discussions so far on the mailing list have proven us correct.
So I would ask that everyone please refrain from accusations that we have
cut off discussions inappropriately, or to escalate the issue.
3.	The cites for the quotes here are in footnotes (which I did not
attach to the body of this e-mail, but can if you would like).
4.	If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the corresponding
changes in the Rationale.
5.	Finally, I know Kathy you were only on the phone during the last
call where Package 6 (which included Closed Generics) was on the agenda and
discussed.  If you review the chat transcript, you will see that there was
no support for including the terms "ban" or "effective ban" as you raised.
Further George Sadowski, who was on the call, in that chat stated that his
opinion of what happened was his opinion and not necessarily the opinion of
the 2013/2014 Board which is reflected in the resolution itself.  I have the
utmost respect for George as he knows from our many conversations, and his
views are incredibly important to us, but for the text of the Draft Final
Report, we have to include the language of the actual resolution and
supporting documentation.

 

*********************************************

So, here is the proposed text:

 

No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD
Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board[1] to either (a) "submit a
change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD", (b) "withdraw
their application" or (c) "maintain their plan to operate an exclusive
generic TLD," which would operate to defer their application to the next
round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next
round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning
exclusive generic TLDs." All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or
(b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called "Closed
Generic" gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.

 

It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would "develop
policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs"[2]. Although the Working
Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive
comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory
Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on "policy advice
concerning exclusive generic TLDs."

 

Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to
develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the
approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no
agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the
Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (e.g., no
changes recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was
not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board's
expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In
the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was
unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i)
Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final
Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be
allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board's resolution), or (iii) Closed
Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in
accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board).

 

 



Jeff Neuman

JJN Solutions, LLC

Founder & CEO
+1.202.549.5079
Vienna, VA 22180

Jeff at JJNSolutions.com <mailto:Jeff at JJNSolutions.com> 
 <http://jjnsolutions.com/> http://jjnsolutions.com

 




  _____  


  _____  

[1]
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-
21-en#2.a

[2] Ibid.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200710/0f1ab8b6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 113 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200710/0f1ab8b6/image001-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list