Jeff – I appreciate your dedication to remaining factual and have one change to your text for that purpose – see this in red below. 

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

Fair enough.  Here is the latest version with Paul’s edits:

 

No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board^[1] to either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.

 

It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs”[2]. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”

 

Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (i.e., no changes [Aikman-Scalese, Anne] to 2012 implementation recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board’s expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i) Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (noting that none were delegated in the 2012 round), or (iii) Closed Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board).

 

 

 

 

Thanks Jeff.

 

I actually think that is a step backwards as there was no ban (or “not allowed”).  There were 3 options, none of which were a ban:  1.  Change  2.  Defer to the next Round or 3.  Withdraw

 

Let’s keep trying.  How about simply deleting the (    ) on all of the options.  They are, ultimately, commentary on the opinions of WG members, so they don’t really add much.  If we can’t do that, then we could say (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (noting than none were delegated in the 2012 round).  That would be factual.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

 

Thanks Paul.  Each option is followed by a parenthetical explaining why that option could be viewed as the status quo.  So while I take your point, we could amend to read:

 

(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (as they were not allowed to proceed in the 2012 round)

 

Would that work?

 

 

 

Thanks Jeff.  Most of your proposed text is accurate and, therefore, good.  However, “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board’s resolution),…” is not accurate since the Board’s resolution specifically addressed the 2012 Round and not future Rounds, so there is no “in line with.”  The inaccuracy jumps out since A would require an applicant to file a closed generic then later amend it.  That would be nonsensical. 

 

A more accurate way to state what I think you are trying to say would simply be “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed…”. 

 

Otherwise, I think this works.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 

All,

 

There has been some good conversation on Closed Generics and specifically making sure that we stay completely factual.  In light of the e-mails from Paul, Kathy, Anne and others, I wanted to present some text to replace part (a) of the Closed Generics section.  That text is below.  A couple of notes first.

 

1. The materials produced by the Working Group are intended to be as objective as possible and not advocacy pieces for one side or the other. I ask that you look at it for its accuracy and not whether the language makes your position look good or not.
2. The Chairs have not cut off any discussions on this topic at all.  If you really believe this to be the case, you are free to report this to the GNSO Council Liaison to escalate.  But to make it clear, leadership has assessed that this Working Group is not able to come to agreement on either the substance of this issue, or even on what the default/status quo would be.  And the discussions so far on the mailing list have proven us correct.  So I would ask that everyone please refrain from accusations that we have cut off discussions inappropriately, or to escalate the issue.
3. The cites for the quotes here are in footnotes (which I did not attach to the body of this e-mail, but can if you would like).
4. If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the corresponding changes in the Rationale.
5. Finally, I know Kathy you were only on the phone during the last call where Package 6 (which included Closed Generics) was on the agenda and discussed.  If you review the chat transcript, you will see that there was no support for including the terms “ban” or “effective ban” as you raised.  Further George Sadowski, who was on the call, in that chat stated that his opinion of what happened was his opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the 2013/2014 Board which is reflected in the resolution itself.  I have the utmost respect for George as he knows from our many conversations, and his views are incredibly important to us, but for the text of the Draft Final Report, we have to include the language of the actual resolution and supporting documentation.

 

*********************************************

So, here is the proposed text:

 

No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board^[1] to either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.

 

It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs”[2]. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”

 

Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (e.g., no changes recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board’s expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i) Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board’s resolution), or (iii) Closed Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board).

 

 

Jeff Neuman

JJN Solutions, LLC

Founder & CEO
+1.202.549.5079
Vienna, VA 22180

Jeff@JJNSolutions.com
http://jjnsolutions.com