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

[Alan Greenberg]

Marc, we can agree to disagree on this.

I find the words "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" very clear.

The Board is asking the GNSO to consider rules 
associated with "exclusive registry access for 
generic strings serving a public interest goal".

Certainly the PDP COULD say "we have considered 
them and reject the concept and believe that 
there should be no prohibition". But unless we 
can get a strong consensus on that (with the hope 
that the GAC will not again object), then what we 
are supposed to be considering is rules for such 
TLDs that can satisfy the PI goal. That is what 
my group's proposaal does, and as I understand 
it, that is what Jeff's proposal is trying to do.

Alan

At 2020-09-16 02:35 PM, trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com wrote:
>Alan,
>
>In the section you cited below, the Board 
>directed the GNSO to specifically consider the 
>issue exclusive registry access for generic 
>strings serving a public interest goal.  Which 
>is exactly what we have been doing in the many 
>discussion on the topic of closed generics.  The 
>Board did not direct the GNSO to come to the 
>conclusion that exclusive registry access for 
>generic strings can only exist if it serves a 
>public interest goal.  Rather, the Board 
>directed the GNSO to specifically consider this 
>issue because the GAC advised that generic 
>strings can only exist if they serve a public 
>interest goal.  This is because the Board must 
>consider GAC advice, but not necessarily follow 
>it.  Accordingly, if the WG made a 
>recommendation that closed generics should be 
>allowed without a public interest requirement 
>this would be aligned with the Board’s 
>instructions to the GNSO, so long as the issue 
>of whether or not the public interest goal 
>should be required was discussed – which it clearly was (and is).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marc H. Trachtenberg
>Shareholder
>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
>Tel 312.456.1020
>Mobile 773.677.3305
><mailto:trac at gtlaw.com>trac at gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
>
>Greenberg Traurig
>
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg 
>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:20 PM
>To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case 
>for Delegating Closed Generics"
>
>*EXTERNAL TO GT*
>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
>
>----------
>If you are not an intended recipient of 
>confidential and privileged information in this 
>email, please delete it, notify us immediately 
>at postmaster at gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200917/a2880450/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: b8cecd6.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7011 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200917/a2880450/b8cecd6.jpg>