Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as *material* in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, *such terms and conditions*: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to *at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA*; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
Alan
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts.
Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation.
Anne
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Justine Chew *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------
While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following:
Insertion as *material* in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, *such terms and conditions*:
(1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to *at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA*; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA.
the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA.
Justine -----
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
Alan
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic.
Justine -----
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts.
Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
[EXTERNAL]
While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following:
Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions:
(1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA.
the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA.
Justine -----
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
Alan
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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 Phil, There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Could you specify? Would that mean if the “exclusive access” is denied – the entire application is denied? Or would you bake in an alternative “open gTLD” portion in the application – to which the gTLD fall back in such event? You write: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Buckingham Sent: Montag, 24. Februar 2020 21:46 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] _____ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
I had this in my original proposal but based on individual discussions I have had I know that some people missed it. To have the Board make a decision that is not in any way appealable will require a Bylaw change, but it is a change for which there is another precedent that will go before the Board before out report reaches them. The Auction Proceeds CCWG also will require a similar Bylaw amendment. Alan At 24/02/2020 09:46 PM, Phil Buckingham wrote: Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
i do not believe the Board should be allowed to make any decisions that are not "appealable" per the IRP. If Claimant has proper standing and a dispute within the scope of the Bylaws definition of Dispute, then they have a valid IRP claim. This is a very slippery slope to start to carve out Board decisions that have no chance of appeal, and why on Earth would we want to do that anyway? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:08 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I had this in my original proposal but based on individual discussions I have had I know that some people missed it.
To have the Board make a decision that is not in any way appealable will require a Bylaw change, but it is a change for which there is another precedent that will go before the Board before out report reaches them. The Auction Proceeds CCWG also will require a similar Bylaw amendment.
Alan
At 24/02/2020 09:46 PM, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com > wrote:
Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic.
Justine -----
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts.
Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
[EXTERNAL] ------------------------------ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following:
Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions:
(1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA.
the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA.
Justine -----
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
Alan
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
Agreed. No Board decision should be not “appealable” via the IRP. If past Board actions with respect to new gTLD applications do not make this clear then I don’t know what does. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics *EXTERNAL TO GT* i do not believe the Board should be allowed to make any decisions that are not "appealable" per the IRP. If Claimant has proper standing and a dispute within the scope of the Bylaws definition of Dispute, then they have a valid IRP claim. This is a very slippery slope to start to carve out Board decisions that have no chance of appeal, and why on Earth would we want to do that anyway? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rodenbaugh.law__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!X--maSSZEJe... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/rodenbaugh.law__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!QNMO30j4hJ5I...> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:08 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I had this in my original proposal but based on individual discussions I have had I know that some people missed it. To have the Board make a decision that is not in any way appealable will require a Bylaw change, but it is a change for which there is another precedent that will go before the Board before out report reaches them. The Auction Proceeds CCWG also will require a similar Bylaw amendment. Alan At 24/02/2020 09:46 PM, Phil Buckingham wrote: Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtl...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPx...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>). 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Just a few thoughts on this string. Phil, if you want PIR to go broke, that would be a good way of doing it. (and since ISOC gets its funding from PIR, I"m not sure that would please everyone.) Next, what is the nature of the current licensees of registrars/resellers of .org? Are they confined to Not-For-Profits ( NFPs)? If not, should we now push for confining use of .ORG to only NFPs - in which case, there are many variants of what constitutes a NFP, depending on the jurisdiction you are in - so what test should be used? Next question - how to define public interest - a very relevant question if you support Alan's proposals (and I largely do) in determining whether or not the applicant should be able to use .org And Phil/Justine's proposal - I wish I had the faith in Contractual Compliance that would be necessary to ensure compliance with proposed rules. If not Compliance as an enforcement mechanism, then unless an arbitration system is set up to deal with the issues, the cost to any individual with standing will be prohibitive. Which raises another point - third parties to a contract (everyone else) do not have 'standing'- the right to have a court enforce a contract - to enforce contractual rules - the RA.. And PICs - much of the above commentary applies. Unless the PIC is part of the RA (i.e., it is more than a nice, warm fuzzy sounding promise - fingers crossed) it is not enforceable at all. And if it IS part of the RA, then Contractual Compliance is the the only other party to that contract, so it would be up to Compliance - and they REALLY need to lift their game, in that case. I"m not saying proposals won't work - just that we need to recognise some real issues being raised Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Buckingham" To:"Justine Chew" Cc:"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" Sent:Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:46:25 +0000 Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Justine Chew SENT: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM TO: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [4] SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ------------------------- While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [6] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [7] _______________________________________________ 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 [8]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [9]). 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. ------------------------- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [10] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [11] _______________________________________________ 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 [12]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [13]). 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. Links: ------ [1] mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com [2] mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com [3] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [4] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [5] mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca [6] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [7] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [8] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [9] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [10] mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [11] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg [12] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [13] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
Holly, Did you mean this note to be sent in response to this string? I am not sure how this relates to PIR, but I may be missing something. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of h.raiche@internode.on.net Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:49 PM To: Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Just a few thoughts on this string. Phil, if you want PIR to go broke, that would be a good way of doing it. (and since ISOC gets its funding from PIR, I"m not sure that would please everyone.) Next, what is the nature of the current licensees of registrars/resellers of .org? Are they confined to Not-For-Profits ( NFPs)? If not, should we now push for confining use of .ORG to only NFPs - in which case, there are many variants of what constitutes a NFP, depending on the jurisdiction you are in - so what test should be used? Next question - how to define public interest - a very relevant question if you support Alan's proposals (and I largely do) in determining whether or not the applicant should be able to use .org And Phil/Justine's proposal - I wish I had the faith in Contractual Compliance that would be necessary to ensure compliance with proposed rules. If not Compliance as an enforcement mechanism, then unless an arbitration system is set up to deal with the issues, the cost to any individual with standing will be prohibitive. Which raises another point - third parties to a contract (everyone else) do not have 'standing'- the right to have a court enforce a contract - to enforce contractual rules - the RA.. And PICs - much of the above commentary applies. Unless the PIC is part of the RA (i.e., it is more than a nice, warm fuzzy sounding promise - fingers crossed) it is not enforceable at all. And if it IS part of the RA, then Contractual Compliance is the the only other party to that contract, so it would be up to Compliance - and they REALLY need to lift their game, in that case. I"m not saying proposals won't work - just that we need to recognise some real issues being raised Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Buckingham" <phil@dotadvice.co.uk<mailto:phil@dotadvice.co.uk>> To: "Justine Chew" <justinechew@gmail.com<mailto:justinechew@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Sent: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:46:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , that’s a great suggestion. The contractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support Alan’s suggestion of going ahead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . Let’s call it a Public Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for Friday’ deadline) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a “ health warning “ that applications will not pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train “ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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<https://www.icannorg/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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Thanks Alan for this clarification and I apologize that there is a conflict in times. That said, can you provide some rationale for why only non-profits can propose applications that serve a public interest? I can probably guess the answer, but it would be better if you explained in your own words. Thanks again for the proposal. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 5:48 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
I'm in the EPDP meeting, so this will be brief. I have a REALLY hard time coming up with any viable closed generic that *I* would view to be truly in the public interest. I used Jeff's example of .disaster in my proposal (but JUST as an example that has some traction), but in reality, I think that it is problematic, if only due to the language point of view ("disaster" is an English word and not meaningful to many). I have a very hard time coming up with other examples, but the overall concept of being in the public interest (world-wide!) points to such a TLD being used for public good reasons and that is not normally something associated with for-profit companies. Such companies may do something that happens to be in the public good, but it is not their prime motivation. So the not-for-profit is in my mind a reasonable restriction that will cull out the requiests that are not likely to have succeeded and make the overall proposal implementable (sending 100s of applications to the Board is not viable). I could have said it must be run by an NGO or IGO whichI think is also highly likely, but I was going for a minimal restriction and did not want to outlaw corporate foundations. Alan At 20/02/2020 04:30 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:
Thanks Alan for this clarification and I apologize that there is a conflict in times. That said, can you provide some rationale for why only non-profits can propose applications that serve a public interest? I can probably guess the answer, but it would be better if you explained in your own words.
Thanks again for the proposal.
Best regards,
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 5:48 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
Alan
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the decision on whether a particular application would move forward or not would rest with the ICANN Board.
The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD would be in the public interest.
The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there is a current precedent.
If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
participants (9)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Alexander Schubert -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
Jeff Neuman -
Justine Chew -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Phil Buckingham -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com