[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Fri Jul 10 20:15:26 UTC 2020
Hi Jeff,
I'm sorry, but the language below is not accurate, and it must be.
There is no way this group can agree to allow Closed Generics outside
the public interest framework required by the GAC in its Advice.
Further, absent our agreement (and the GNSO’s approval), we have not
meet the requirements of the Board's resolution on Closed Generics,
and the bar does not simply "time out."
I offer the language below as a substitution -- to accurately reflect
the two “Closed Generic” policy requirements before this WG and
the GNSO -- the 2015 Board Resolution AND the GAC Advice.
No Agreement: The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on a
policy that meets the GAC Advice requirements for “exclusive
registry access for generic strings serving a public interest
goal.” In keeping with the requirements of the 2015 Board
resolution, as clarified in the Rationale, the GNSO must “inform the
Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue.”
It has not done so.
_“The NGPC [ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee] is also
requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive
registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as
part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent
rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular
basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The President and CEO
should provide the GNSO with information needed to support this
request.”
_https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en
Accordingly, in the absence of agreement by the Working Group on any
new policy consistent with the GAC advice on public interest goals,
the status quo is that Closed Generics would not be allowed in
subsequent rounds in line the Board’s resolution. The GNSO has not
formulated or approved a policy in accordance with the Board’s
wishes, as stated in the Rationale, and has not reported any progress
to the Board, as requested in the Rationale. Therefore, the Board’s
resolution holds until such a policy is formulated and formally
approved by the GNSO.
---------------
Best, Kathy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Neuman"
To:"McGrady Paul D." , "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:18:30 +0000
Subject:[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic
Text
[KK: Replacing]Fair enough. Here is the latest version with Paul’s
edits:
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] [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] [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 (eg., 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 (noting that none were delegated in the 2012 round), 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
http://jjnsolutions.com [3]
FROM: McGrady, Paul D.
SENT: Thursday, July 9, 2020 2:14 PM
TO: Jeff Neuman ; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
SUBJECT: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics
Thanks Jeff.
I actually think that is a step backwards as there was no ban (or
“not allowed”). There were 3 options, none of which were a
ban: 1. Change 2. Defer to the next Round or 3. Withdraw
Let’s keep trying. How about simply deleting the ( ) on all
of the options. They are, ultimately, commentary on the opinions of
WG members, so they don’t really add much. If we can’t do that,
then we could say (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (noting
than none were delegated in the 2012 round). That would be factual.
Best,
Paul
FROM: Jeff Neuman
SENT: Thursday, July 9, 2020 1:09 PM
TO: McGrady, Paul D. ; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [6]
SUBJECT: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics
Thanks Paul. Each option is followed by a parenthetical explaining
why that option could be viewed as the status quo. So while I take
your point, we could amend to read:
(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (as they were not allowed
to proceed in the 2012 round)
Would that work?
Jeff Neuman
JJN Solutions, LLC
Founder & CEO
+1.202.549.5079
Vienna, VA 22180
Jeff at JJNSolutions.com [7]
http://jjnsolutions.com [8]
FROM: McGrady, Paul D.
SENT: Thursday, July 9, 2020 1:11 PM
TO: Jeff Neuman ; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [11]
SUBJECT: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics
Thanks Jeff. Most of your proposed text is accurate and, therefore,
good. However, “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in
line with part (a) of the Board’s resolution),…” is not accurate
since the Board’s resolution specifically addressed the 2012 Round
and not future Rounds, so there is no “in line with.” The
inaccuracy jumps out since A would require an applicant to file a
closed generic then later amend it. That would be nonsensical.
A more accurate way to state what I think you are trying to say would
simply be “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed…”.
Otherwise, I think this works.
Best,
Paul
To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here
[12]. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource
Toolkit [13].
This message may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you
are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are
prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Jeff Neuman
SENT: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:41 AM
TO: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [15]
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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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).
* If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the
corresponding changes in the Rationale.
* 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] [16] 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] [17].
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 [18]
http://jjnsolutions.com [19]
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
[1] [20]
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a
[2] [21] Ibid.
[1] [22]
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a
[2] [23] Ibid.
Links:
------
[1] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftn1
[2] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomaincom/#_ftn2
[3] http://jjnsolutions.com/
[4] mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com
[5] mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
[6] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[7] mailto:Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
[8] http://jjnsolutions.com/
[9] mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
[10] mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com
[11] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[12] https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe
[13]
https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit
[14] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
[15] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[16] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftn3
[17] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftn4
[18] mailto:Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
[19] http://jjnsolutions.com/
[20] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftnref1
[21] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftnref2
[22] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftnref3
[23] http://gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com/#_ftnref4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200710/f6cfad34/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list