Update on the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic TLDs
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.
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 Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D9407B.50815AB0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of John McElwaine via council Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:14 PM To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Update on the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic TLDs [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.
Anne, Thank you for these encouraging comments. I believe that they align with the group's discussions: " ... the group agreed that the public interest is a broad concept that should not be limited by the GPI Framework and ICANN's Bylaws. In other words, a closed generic gTLD could serve public interest goals that go beyond ICANN's mission." Best, John From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:02 PM To: John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com>; GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: Update on the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic TLDs 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 Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D94094.BF2A7AF0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of John McElwaine via council Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 1:14 PM To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Update on the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic TLDs [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Anne, Delayed response but while I understand that the GAC advice does not state a requirement for Global Public Interest but I strongly believe Closed Generics should reflect both requirements: "serve a public interest goal" per 2013 GAC Advice AND serve the global public interest, or at least not harm the global public interest, per the Bylaws. I therefore welcome the fact that the group is discussing consideration of both concepts. Warmly, Tomslin @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/ On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 08:03, Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
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
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
AAikman@lewisroca.com
D. 520.629.4428
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *John McElwaine via council *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2023 1:14 PM *To:* GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Update on the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generic TLDs
*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------
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.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
John McElwaine -
Tomslin Samme-Nlar