Thank you, John.  We all appreciate receiving the fruits of this effort to date.  I also think everyone knows that any proposed framework would be subject to further policy work within the GNSO. 

 

As a former member of the SubPro WG, one sentence struck me as requiring further clarification in connection with the scope of the work at hand:  “Participants did not, however, reach agreement on whether demonstrating that a closed generic gTLD will serve a public interest goal necessarily means that it also will be in the

global public interest.”

 

Given that the standing GAC Advice does not state a requirement for a Closed Generic to meet a “Global Public Interest” test and given how illusive that term is, I believe it would be in the best interests of the ICANN community for the group to focus on the language used by the GAC, i.e. “serve a public interest goal.”

 

We understand that serving the “Global Public Interest” (GPI) is part of the ICANN By-Laws but we also understand that the GPI is informed (in accordance with those same By-Laws) by the Multi-Stakeholder bottom up policy process.  In this case, based on direction from the Board, that policy process will have parameters defined in part by the GAC Advice, which specifies a standard requiring that a Closed Generic serve a public interest goal.  Hopefully that scope will govern the discussions moving forward. 

 

I think application of this more narrow standard is the only way the group can hope to make progress on this issue and develop evaluation criteria.  Hopefully the report from the group will serve as a scoping exercise for the additional policy work that will have to be done if MSM principles are to be preserved.  In this regard, the sooner the group finishes its work, the better chance we all have of “dovetailing” this work with the opening of the next round of new gTLDs. 

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

 

Dear Councilors,

 

Attached please find the Summary Notes from the hybrid meeting of the GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue Group.  This meeting occurred in Washington, D.C. January 26-27.   During this hybrid meeting, participants discussed several key topics

and definitions, brainstormed ideas for potential application and evaluation criteria, and collaborated in breakout and plenary sessions. 

 

Best regards,

 

John

Confidentiality Notice
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.