[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call

[Kathy Kleiman]

	Dear Jeff and Cheryl,

	It’s been a difficult week in the US and the world, including those
of living in the Washington DC area. Thank you for the additional time
to complete my response to the Consensus Call.

	I join my fellow Working Group members in appreciation of your
leadership of this long-running WG and its dynamic and robust
discussions on many important topics for New gTLDs. We will leave
ICANN with new gTLD structures and processes clearer and more robust
than those we found.  

	I must rise, however, in opposition to Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10
in Topic 9 on RVCs and private PICs. I strongly oppose the inclusion
of both recommendations in our report to Council, and respectfully
submit that they have neither Consensus nor Strong Support across the
WG or Community. 

	Specifically, private PICs (now RVCs) and the PICDRP were never
created by the GNSO or a PDP; they were imposed by a former ICANN CEO
hoping to create a mechanism for addressing calls from the GAC for a
place in the ICANN-New gTLD Registry Agreement to address Early
Warnings and GAC Advice (the GAC was seeking ways to limit access to a
gTLD (for sensitive and highly-sensitive strings) and ways to open
gTLDs (for those creating exclusive access to generic TLDs in dozens
of businesses and industries)). Happily, the use of private PICs/RVCs
for GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings is now embodied in our
Recommendation 30.7.

	Ditto for the idea of using a private PICs/RVC to settle a formal
objection.  Recommendation 31.16 creates the opportunity for an
applicant “to amend an application or add Registry Voluntary
Commitments (RVC)s” to end an objection; the recommendation then
requires the change to proceed through the Application Change Request
process and into public comment for all to see, review and comment on.
Excellent.

	This leaves Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 for the “kitchen sink”
– the range of private and potentially abusive commitments that a
registry might make in its own interests or on behalf of special
interests adopt in potential violation of a) the scope and mission of
ICANN, b) our Human Rights Core Value, c) fundamental rights for
registrants, including Freedom of Expression and due process, c) and
respect for the GNSO, our PDPs and the policies we arrive at through
our consensus processes. 

	Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 continue the process of undermining
ICANN processes, policies and bylaws started in 2013 and 2014. Some
private PICs were appalling and abusive then; it will undermine
ICANN’s integrity and independence to go forward in a similar manner
now.  ICANN cannot act outside its scope and mission, nor can ICANN
authorize someone else to act on its behalf outside its scope and
mission. These two recommendations are outside our scope and mandate,
and respectfully, outside the agreement of this WG. __

	____ 

	Accordingly, I oppose the inclusion of Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10
as recommendations from this WG to the GNSO Council. _I notify the
Co-Chairs of my intent to file a Minority Statement by the upcoming
deadline pursuant to GNSO Working Group Guidelines._

	I wish to thank my fellow WG members for our discussions and debates.
May 2021 be a happy and healthy year for you and your family.  As for
me, Inauguration Day in the US cannot come soon enough.

	Best regards,
 Kathy 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20210110/9033e3fe/attachment.html>