All,
There has been a lot of discussion in the past 24 hours or so on the applicability of our work on the 2012 applications. Some have expressed concerns about the “fairness” of establishing a policy or new procedures for subsequent rounds when Closed Generics
were not allowed in 2012.
The applicable Board Resolution covering Closed Generics required the 2012 applicants for Closed Generics to do one of three things. Applicants could have withdrawn their applications completely, signed the then-current Registry Agreement
which did not allow Closed Generics, or could have deferred their applications for consideration in a subsequent round. As we covered on the call on Thursday, all of the applicants chose either to convert their applications to open TLDs or withdraw their
applications completely. There were NO applicants that elected to defer their applications to any future round.
Therefore, although in theory we could have had some issues that we needed to address involving applicants in the 2012 round, the reality is that we do not have any such issues. To address the arguments about fairness of any new policy
recommendations on applicants from the previous round, all we can say is that we need to focus on what the right policy should be first without the consideration of the fairness or unfairness to previous applicants from having different rules. If we as a
group determine that the right policy is something other than what happened in 2012, then it will by up to the GNSO Council to either set up a new group to deal with that issue or to refer the issue to this group at a later date. But for now, as some have
stated, that issue is out of scope for our group.
The reality is that there are many things that this group is considering which could produce results that may treat new applicants differently than previous round applicants. Some of those changes may be favorable to the new applicants
and some less favorable. The same is true with respect to previous applicants. If we did not make any changes to policy or implementation for fear of the impact on previous or new applicants, no changes would ever be made. The point is that we need to decide
what is the right thing to do, point out to the GNSO Council the potential impacts, and then leave it to the Council on what the next steps should be.
Finally, all requests for data or information from ICANN staff or any outside third party should go through the Working Group Leadership team. No working group members should request information directly without Leadership’s review. Leadership
reviews all outstanding action items, including requests for information, and makes a decision on what is necessary and what is feasible. We consider all of these requests seriously and weigh the pros and cons of getting that data, including time, resources
and cost.
Thanks for your cooperation and let us know if you have any comments or questions.
Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E:
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
www.comlaude.com
![]()