Hi All,
We do not anticipate the opening of the application window before end of 2022, right? That’s in one and a half years! The board clearly demanded that we create policy in regards to “closed generics”: Not just look over the 2012 AGB – but engage in a full blown GNSO Policy Development Process for this tiny item! Have we really done this OUTSIDE of the 2012 AGB revision? We could finalize our 2012 AGB revision and keep this little item “open” – and in parallel start to do the job the board asked us to do. There are 1.5 years. For such a minor question.
I say: Keep this tiny topic out of the final report; bring together the old band and do the job we are tasked to do. This time there HAS to be a decision: this is a clear mandate to either allow closed generics or not. There is no “fallback solution”: this hasn’t been clarified in the 2007 PDP – we will have to do it now. It’s not part of the 2012 AGB revision – it’s outside of that scope.
Could somebody remind me how a formal GNSO PDP is being launched, who is eligible to launch one, what the formal procedures are? Just let’s do it. The ICANN Overlords commanded us – we have to deliver.
Meanwhile: This impacts a very tiny portion of the applicant community. If we do NOT clarify this question with a full blown GNSO PDP then we hurt the applicants that are inclined to try their luck again: they risk a board rejection all over again. Not fair to them. This is meant to be decided by the COMMUNITY – not the board.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2020 19:41
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the corresponding changes in the Rationale.
- 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