[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Current Thinking on Closed Generics

Sun Jul 26 13:15:32 UTC 2020

Hi Jeff,

We had literally years of discussion about closed generics. Only recently we
"suddenly discovered" (or agreed on)  that indeed ICANN (through its bylaws)
has clearly tied the expansion of the DNS to a public interest goal.
I suggest that we quote the relevant passages of the bylaws which clearly
mandate a public interest goal:

Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES  

(b) CORE VALUES

(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels
of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up,
multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global
public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;

(iv) Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain
names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified
through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;

Especially Section 1.2 (b)(iv): "Introducing and promoting competition in
the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the
public interest."

For the longest time there was a lot of confusion around this question and
some in this WG even clearly questioned whether the new gTLD program was in
fact tied to any public interest goal at all. I feel it is our duty to point
this finding out - as we ourselves did not know till recently. Unless of
course somebody thinks we aren't bound to the bylaws.

I would also like that we clarify whether or not the Kurt Pritz group
proposal eliminates SPEC13 altogether (what would be the purpose of Spec 13
if we decide that any string can be applied for as closed gTLD?). So in case
Spec 13 becomes superfluous with that proposal: we clearly have to state
that as SPEC13 is a huge portion of our policy - and would just simply go
away. At least that's my understanding.

We in this WG couldn't come up with any consensus. The likelihood that the
community does it kind of zero in my mind. So in the likely event that the
comment period doesn't clarify positions: what then? We continue to not
address the issue?

Here my suggestion: We have to suggest something to the community. We have
nothing as of right now. At bare minimum we could voice agreement on the
fact that the ICANN bylaws are clearly binding the new gTLD program to a
public interest goal. That such public interest goal will of course remain
in place even if we fail to suggest concrete policy advice. That all
applicants who potentially plan to apply for closed generics:

*        Are aware that it didn't work out in 2012

*        That there is no evidence whatsoever that GAC's or the board's
position in this regard has changed at all (can we get a current position on
this?)

*        That there is an agreement within the GNSO WG that indeed closed
generics will have to follow a public interest goal (subject to
interpretation)

If some applicant assumes that their ".genericterm" application will serve
the public interest then they stand the risk that GAC, the community or the
board disagree. I want that applicants (the digital branding departments of
big corporations) are at least aware (and their consultants have to make
them aware) that just because closed generics aren't governed you can't
expect to get such application confirmed without problems. 

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Samstag, 25. Juli 2020 19:30
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Current Thinking on Closed Generics

All,

I wanted to throw something out for consideration by the group in the
interests of getting to the draft final report.  We are already a week or
two behind and I am worried that we could get much further behind and
ultimately not meet our end of year date.  So, I am laying this out on the
line as a proposal.  This is not a definitive plan, but something to think
about.

1.	For the Draft final report, we state that there is No Agreement on
the issue of Closed Generics and keep the paragraph in the draft the way it
is today.
2.	In addition to the text that is already in there, we now have two
proposals, one from George et al., and one from Kurt, et al.  What if we
give everyone an additional week to come up with any proposals on Closed
generics they would like to float out for public comment.
3.	We publish those proposals for public comment being very specific
that they are individual proposals and do not have any level of support
within the working group.  We may even not want to attach names to the
proposal so as to try not and bias the comments we get in.  We can of course
discuss this last point.
4.	We solicit comments on all of the proposals.
5.	While the public comment period is going on, we continue to discuss
the proposals as a Working Group to see if we can reach any sort of
consensus on this issue.
6.	We make it very clear in our report that absent reaching consensus
within the Working Group on any of these proposals, taking into
consideration public comments of course, that in the final report, we will
go with the language that is in the Draft Final Report (without any of the
individual proposals); namely, No Agreement.

Why do this?

a)      We need to be realistic with ourselves as well as the community that
to date there is no agreement on how to move forward.

b)      We also need to give the community a chance to look at the various
options people in the working group have proposed so that they can think
about these as well (regardless of whether one group of people like it or
not).

c)      At the end of the day, we will need to demonstrate to the GNSO
Council and the Board that we attempted every possible way to reach
consensus on a compromise.

d)      And finally there are 40+ other topics that we have come to some
sort of final resolution on and there is no reason to delay everything even
more for these last few issues.

What does this mean for us?

i)                 On the call on Monday, we will discuss this path of
moving forward.

ii)                This means that we do not need to use up time on the call
discussing the two existing proposals for which I am sure we could spend
hours going back and forth and likely end up on Monday exactly where we are
now.

iii)               It also means that others have a week to submit their own
proposals.  I personally have some ideas that I may put into a proposal that
I may submit (not as a co-chair, but personally speaking).   This may give
us another reason to not attach names to the proposals so that if I
submitted a proposal it wouldn't be associated with the "co-chair".  

iv)               We work on finalizing the draft report sections on
Predictability and Mechanisms of Last Resort this week as well as the
Preamble and "Cant Live With" Package 7.

v)                This would enable us to stay only a week or to behind.

Thoughts?

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E:  <mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com> jeff at jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200726/a677bcc6/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/20200726/a677bcc6/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16729 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200726/a677bcc6/image003-0001.png>