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

Sun Jul 26 19:13:11 UTC 2020

Dear Jeff:

Allow me just a quick response. 

1.  The proposals that we have received merit a full discussion by the PDP. I think that time should be made available.

2.  Your latest communication seems to me to ignore the current and prospective economic situation arising from the global pandemic. 

> … we could get much further behind and ultimately not meet our end of year date.

On the contrary, there should now be no urgency. If the objective is to successfully launch another large opening of the DNS, then that should be done in the context of substantial international economic expansion. Which is apparently not currently on the cards.

I assume that Staff and Co-Chairs have investigated the relationships between the macro economic situation and the relative success of introducing large numbers of new TLDs.-

3.  Although I may have missed something, I do not know where the 'end of year date' comes from.
Nor the current twice a week PDP schedule. Indeed, that has not brought matters forward, rather just made more time for discussion.

Just a few thoughts

Best regards

CW

> …
> 

> we could get much further behind and ultimately not meet our end of year date.de julio de 2020 a las 18:30 Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> escribió:
> 
>     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?
> 
>        1. We need to be realistic with ourselves as well as the community that to date there is no agreement on how to move forward.
>        2. 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).
>        3. 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.
>        4. 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: jeff at jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com
> 
>     http://jjnsolutions.com
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 

> _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>     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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200726/8410e27f/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/20200726/8410e27f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 89681 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200726/8410e27f/image002-0001.png>