Subsequent Procedures: Call for comments on Topic 23: Closed Generics (aka Exclusive Generics)
All, As many of you already know, the Draft Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, covering a total of 41 topics, has been released for public comment, with the comment period closing on 30 September. We have been diligently discussing selected topics at each CPWG Call for many months now, and in many cases, scorecards on the anticipated recommendations for various topics have been drawn up. While we continue with our discussions on CPWG Calls insofar as time permits, Topic 23: Closed Generics (otherwise known as Exclusive Generics) is one which has not yielded any recommendation from the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG because of a lack of agreement to-date. As a result, the Draft Final Report portion concerning Topic 23 only summarizes the PDP WG deliberations, including ideas raised and discussed, and appends 3 proposals for comment. *Preamble* - In the GAC Beijing Communique, GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a *public interest goal*". - The Board's action in response, ultimately led to *no exclusive generic gTLDs being delegated in the 2012 round*. - SubPro PDP WG was to develop policy concerning Closed Generics / Exclusive Generics for subsequent procedures; i.e. under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? - A Closed Generic / Exclusive Generic is a generic word string to be used exclusively by applicant; Note: a brand name that is not a generic word won't be considered as a Closed Generic. *Report Extract and Proposals* - [0] Draft Final Report extract on Topic 23, pages 96-102 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/SubPro-draft-final-report-Topic23-Closed%20Generics.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1598954187975&api=v2> - [1] A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGnTLDs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633365000&api=v2>, submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky and Greg Shatan. - [2] The Case for Delegating Closed Generics <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24July2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633375000&api=v2>, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. - [3] Closed Generics Proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%20Generics%20Proposal.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1596633420000&api=v2>, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity. *Action Required From You* Under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? Please share your thoughts on and/or indicate if you favour/disfavour any element(s) in any of the 3 proposals [1], [2], and [3] above. *Next Steps* I hope to gain some early feedback to position a better informed discussion in a week's time. Thanks, Justine ---
Further to a query I received on a definition and examples of a generic word, please refer to: *Definition* A "Generic String" means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others (as defined in Specification 11, 3(d) of the Registry Agreement). *Examples:* The list of generic strings which the GAC drew up for the last round can be found at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/cat2-safeguards. The classic example would be .BOOK Justine On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 18:02, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
As many of you already know, the Draft Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, covering a total of 41 topics, has been released for public comment, with the comment period closing on 30 September.
We have been diligently discussing selected topics at each CPWG Call for many months now, and in many cases, scorecards on the anticipated recommendations for various topics have been drawn up. While we continue with our discussions on CPWG Calls insofar as time permits, Topic 23: Closed Generics (otherwise known as Exclusive Generics) is one which has not yielded any recommendation from the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG because of a lack of agreement to-date.
As a result, the Draft Final Report portion concerning Topic 23 only summarizes the PDP WG deliberations, including ideas raised and discussed, and appends 3 proposals for comment.
*Preamble*
- In the GAC Beijing Communique, GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a *public interest goal*". - The Board's action in response, ultimately led to *no exclusive generic gTLDs being delegated in the 2012 round*. - SubPro PDP WG was to develop policy concerning Closed Generics / Exclusive Generics for subsequent procedures; i.e. under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? - A Closed Generic / Exclusive Generic is a generic word string to be used exclusively by applicant; Note: a brand name that is not a generic word won't be considered as a Closed Generic.
*Report Extract and Proposals*
- [0] Draft Final Report extract on Topic 23, pages 96-102 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/SubPro-draft-final-report-Topic23-Closed%20Generics.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1598954187975&api=v2> - [1] A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGnTLDs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633365000&api=v2>, submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky and Greg Shatan. - [2] The Case for Delegating Closed Generics <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24July2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633375000&api=v2>, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. - [3] Closed Generics Proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%20Generics%20Proposal.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1596633420000&api=v2>, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity.
*Action Required From You* Under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? Please share your thoughts on and/or indicate if you favour/disfavour any element(s) in any of the 3 proposals [1], [2], and [3] above.
*Next Steps* I hope to gain some early feedback to position a better informed discussion in a week's time.
Thanks,
Justine ---
Dear Justine: Thankyou. I support the Sadowski et al. proposal, particularly as it could be applied to Geo Names. I have noted the semantic argument against this proposal which is not relevant. A different moniker would also be OK. I do not support other proposals for 'closed' generics. (a) these are a misnomer. In fact they would be 'private' gTLDs. (b) more generally I want the DNS to protect the interests of the general public (users) in their collective rights to use their own languages. Furthermore undesirable precedents in US/EN usages must not be allowed to prejudice future practice in other languages and scripts. CW
El 1 de septiembre de 2020 a las 12:02 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> escribió:
All,
As many of you already know, the Draft Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, covering a total of 41 topics, has been released for public comment, with the comment period closing on 30 September.
We have been diligently discussing selected topics at each CPWG Call for many months now, and in many cases, scorecards on the anticipated recommendations for various topics have been drawn up. While we continue with our discussions on CPWG Calls insofar as time permits, Topic 23: Closed Generics (otherwise known as Exclusive Generics) is one which has not yielded any recommendation from the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG because of a lack of agreement to-date.
As a result, the Draft Final Report portion concerning Topic 23 only summarizes the PDP WG deliberations, including ideas raised and discussed, and appends 3 proposals for comment.
Preamble * In the GAC Beijing Communique, GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal". * The Board's action in response, ultimately led to no exclusive generic gTLDs being delegated in the 2012 round. * SubPro PDP WG was to develop policy concerning Closed Generics / Exclusive Generics for subsequent procedures; i.e. under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? * A Closed Generic / Exclusive Generic is a generic word string to be used exclusively by applicant; Note: a brand name that is not a generic word won't be considered as a Closed Generic.
Report Extract and Proposals * [0] Draft Final Report extract on Topic 23, pages 96-102 https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/SubPro-draft-final-report-Topic23-Closed%20Generics.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1598954187975&api=v2 * [1] A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs) https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGnTLDs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633365000&api=v2 , submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky and Greg Shatan. * [2] The Case for Delegating Closed Generics https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24July2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633375000&api=v2 , submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. * [3] Closed Generics Proposal https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%20Generics%20Proposal.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1596633420000&api=v2 , submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity.
Action Required From You Under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? Please share your thoughts on and/or indicate if you favour/disfavour any element(s) in any of the 3 proposals [1], [2], and [3] above.
Next Steps I hope to gain some early feedback to position a better informed discussion in a week's time.
Thanks,
Justine --- _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi there. I would also support the Greenberg, Kleinman, Shatan and Sadowski proposal as a way to move forward on this issue. It is pretty well outlined. I am not in favour of "private gTLD's" as Christopher calls them which is a way to corner the market on a particular item/service. But I could see a good public interest use for a few top level names -- i.e. something that would put all information about refugees and refugee services around the world in one place -- maybe administered by the U.N. Just a possible example. Helpful? Marita On 9/9/2020 12:43 PM, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW wrote:
Dear Justine: Thankyou.
I support the Sadowski et al. proposal, particularly as it could be applied to Geo Names. I have noted the semantic argument against this proposal which is not relevant. A different moniker would also be OK.
I do not support other proposals for 'closed' generics. (a) these are a misnomer. In fact they would be 'private' gTLDs. (b) more generally I want the DNS to protect the interests of the general public (users) in their collective rights to use their own languages. Furthermore undesirable precedents in US/EN usages must not be allowed to prejudice future practice in other languages and scripts.
CW
El 1 de septiembre de 2020 a las 12:02 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> escribió:
All,
As many of you already know, the Draft Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, covering a total of 41 topics, has been released for public comment, with the comment period closing on 30 September.
We have been diligently discussing selected topics at each CPWG Call for many months now, and in many cases, scorecards on the anticipated recommendations for various topics have been drawn up. While we continue with our discussions on CPWG Calls insofar as time permits, Topic 23: Closed Generics (otherwise known as Exclusive Generics) is one which has not yielded any recommendation from the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG because of a lack of agreement to-date. *_ _*As a result, the Draft Final Report portion concerning Topic 23 only summarizes the PDP WG deliberations, including ideas raised and discussed, and appends 3 proposals for comment.
_*Preamble*_
* In the GAC Beijing Communique, GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a _public interest goal_". * The Board's action in response, ultimately led to _no exclusive generic gTLDs being delegated in the 2012 round_. * SubPro PDP WG was to develop policy concerning Closed Generics / Exclusive Generics for subsequent procedures; i.e. under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? * A Closed Generic / Exclusive Generic is a generic word string to be used exclusively by applicant; Note: a brand name that is not a generic word won't be considered as a Closed Generic.
_* Report Extract and Proposals*_
* [0] Draft Final Report extract on Topic 23, pages 96-102 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/SubPro-draft-final-report-Topic23-Closed%20Generics.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1598954187975&api=v2> * [1] A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGnTLDs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633365000&api=v2>, submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky and Greg Shatan. * [2] The Case for Delegating Closed Generics <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24July2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633375000&api=v2>, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. * [3] Closed Generics Proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%20Generics%20Proposal.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1596633420000&api=v2>, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity.
_* Action Required From You*_ Under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? Please share your thoughts on and/or indicate if you favour/disfavour any element(s) in any of the 3 proposals [1], [2], and [3] above.
*_Next Steps_* I hope to gain some early feedback to position a better informed discussion in a week's time.
Thanks,
Justine --- _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Further to our discussion on the CPWG call of 16 Sep, I'm recirculating my original call for comments on Closed Generics.which contains the links to the 3 proposals from which we should glean any elements which we think should apply in "governing" Closed Generics. Thanks, Justine ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 18:02 Subject: Subsequent Procedures: Call for comments on Topic 23: Closed Generics (aka Exclusive Generics) To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> All, As many of you already know, the Draft Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, covering a total of 41 topics, has been released for public comment, with the comment period closing on 30 September. We have been diligently discussing selected topics at each CPWG Call for many months now, and in many cases, scorecards on the anticipated recommendations for various topics have been drawn up. While we continue with our discussions on CPWG Calls insofar as time permits, Topic 23: Closed Generics (otherwise known as Exclusive Generics) is one which has not yielded any recommendation from the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG because of a lack of agreement to-date. As a result, the Draft Final Report portion concerning Topic 23 only summarizes the PDP WG deliberations, including ideas raised and discussed, and appends 3 proposals for comment. *Preamble* - In the GAC Beijing Communique, GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a *public interest goal*". - The Board's action in response, ultimately led to *no exclusive generic gTLDs being delegated in the 2012 round*. - SubPro PDP WG was to develop policy concerning Closed Generics / Exclusive Generics for subsequent procedures; i.e. under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? - A Closed Generic / Exclusive Generic is a generic word string to be used exclusively by applicant; Note: a brand name that is not a generic word won't be considered as a Closed Generic. *Report Extract and Proposals* - [0] Draft Final Report extract on Topic 23, pages 96-102 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/SubPro-draft-final-report-Topic23-Closed%20Generics.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1598954187975&api=v2> - [1] A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGnTLDs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633365000&api=v2>, submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky and Greg Shatan. - [2] The Case for Delegating Closed Generics <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24July2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1596633375000&api=v2>, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. - [3] Closed Generics Proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%20Generics%20Proposal.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1596633420000&api=v2>, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity. *Action Required From You* Under what circumstances should an application for a Closed Generic TLD be considered and/or what criteria should such an application carry (if at all) for the next round? Please share your thoughts on and/or indicate if you favour/disfavour any element(s) in any of the 3 proposals [1], [2], and [3] above. *Next Steps* I hope to gain some early feedback to position a better informed discussion in a week's time. Thanks, Justine ---
participants (3)
-
Justine Chew -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Marita Moll