This proposal is being sent out by me personally and NOT the Leadership Team (who hasn’t even seen this yet).  It is not an indication of where I think we are, but just a VERY HIGH LEVEL approach to solicit comments.

 

I appreciate all of the proposals that have come in recently on how to deal with Closed Generics, but I wanted to try a much higher level proposal that attempts to take points from a number of previous proposals and extract some of the points where I thought we had some agreement.  The more in the weeds we get, the more it appears we get stuck.  I, at one time, also had a lot of details in my original proposal, but I stripped them all out. 

We need to recognize that there is no definition of public interest.  The only real viable ones you can find in legal dictionaries or other treatises and other documents is usually circular – namely public interest is that which the public deems it to be. 

 

So, I tried to go back to the basics:

 

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

Background

The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. In the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal".

 

As part of its response to the GAC Advice, ICANN solicited comments from the community on this issue.  Comments from the community expressed a diversity of views on how, and whether the Board should implement the GAC advice.  

 

Ultimately, on 21 June 2016, the ICANN Board passed a resolutionrequesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue.”

 

Proposal for our Draft Final Report

 

The Implementation Review Team must create a Framework for Evaluating Closed Generic applications to determine whether those applications “serve a legitimate public interest goal.”

 

In order to serve a legitimate public interest goal, the following criteria, at a minimum, must be satisfied:

 

 

The following factors should be used by the IRT to create such a Framework and determining whether the proposed Closed Generic application “serves a public interest goal.”

 

·        Why is the selected string necessary for your registry / Why did you choose this string at the exclusion of others?

·        How does the proposed closed registry serve the public interest?

·        How does the proposed mission and purpose of the registry support such use and why must it be a closed model?

·        What is the likely effect on competition of awarding the proposed closed registry for the same or similar goods and/or services?

o   Are there other strings already delegated that serve the Applicant’s industry which can be utilized by competitors?

o   If not, are there reasonable alternatives to the string that may be utilized by other entities in the Applicant’s industry in the then-current round or if proposed during a subsequent round?

·        Who are the intended “users” or beneficiaries of the TLD?    

·        What are the benefits to those users or beneficiaries of the TLD?

·        What will the governance of the TLD be and who will constitute the Governance Council?

 

Rules

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com