[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"

[Alexander Schubert]

Allan,

 

Your assertion has merit. 

 

One could also argue that the new gTLD program goal is to "serve the public
interest" - and the board might wanted to remind everybody about that fact
by slipping in the addition "serving a public interest goal as part of the
policy work". 


I have a question for those who support the notion of private gTLDs:
Assuming we allow closed generics; would they be subject to anything like
Spec-13? We already have closed generics (actually a truckload of them:
.apple, .mango, .orange just to name a few fruits), but as of now they had
to commit to Spec 13. Would the operators of a closed generic have to
subject themselves to some Spec-X as well? Mark? Kurt? Mike? What is your
stance on this?

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 21:20
To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed
Generics"

 

While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted
something that I think needs to be considered going forward.

In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating
Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics,
the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response
to GAC Advice:

The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for
?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy
recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in
subsequent rounds. 

That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted.
The exact wording was:

NGPC requests 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 key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate
policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A
PUBLIC INTEREST.

I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not
possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the
charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. 

Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not
believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned
with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. 

Alan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200917/c799e50e/attachment.html>