<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Tomslin,</p>
<p>What recommendation is Council sending to the Board and how does
it contradict the SubPro WG? I'm sorry to not be on these lists
or see these nuances. I am sure there is great anger from Jeff,
Kurt and Paul right now. <br>
</p>
<p><i>Just between us, can we be candid about what happened in the
Closed Generics Small Team?</i><i> </i>As a matter of real
policy, I feel the Closed Generics Small Team (CGST) advanced this
dialogue of Closed Generics with a real cross-community and
in-depth exploration of the <u>problems and possibilities</u><u>
of Closed Generics</u>. <br>
</p>
<p>The Framework showed with great clarity that Closed Generics are
gTLDs of words/strings with meanings for entire industries and
should be allocated - if allocated - with great sensitivity to the
representativeness of the entire industry AND clear agreement to
abide by defined standards of non anti-competitive behavior if one
company in an industry obtains the Closed Generic. For example,
Amazon can't take all the domain names in .BOOK for themselves
alone. <br>
</p>
<p>Section 10 may be its strongest and best part of the Framework.
It lays out what I wrote above.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf">https://community.icann.org/display/GFDOCG/FOR+INPUT%3A+Draft+Framework+for+Closed+Generic+gTLDs?preview=/244944418/244944420/Draft%20Framework%20for%20Closed%20Generic%20gTLDs.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
<p>---</p>
<p>I head into a medical procedure so won't be able to engage on the
members list. Also, we on the Members list do not understand the
nuances of Council wording as you do. I think Council practices
are becoming very nuanced. <br>
</p>
<p>We will follow your good advice. But please don't let them erase
the good work of the Closed Generics Small Team. You called us
into existence and we worked hard. What we learned cannot be
unlearned - and the Board will be reading our work and processing
it. <br>
</p>
Best regards, Kathy<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/17/2023 8:23 AM, Tomslin
Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAM8DdeXtgTeeC_99KCKCm8iCPAdKHf7dPV+OSe8eP1UBHQoqKg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Kathy,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks for the detailed update. We are
certainly thankful to you and the team for the hard work you
put into this.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">My only concern with the 'recommendation' that
the council leadership is planning on sending to the board
is that it appears to make recommendations contrary to the
subpro report. This concern comes strictly from the point of
view of my role as a GNSO policy manager (councillor). </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither
to allow nor ban closed generics, hence leaving it at the
discretion of the board, then I believe the Council should
be careful not to make contradictory statements that might
appear to the community as making an "executive
recommendation" to the board outside the PDP process.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I see a thread has also been spun in the
members' list. Perhaps we should take the discussion there
and see what other members think?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Warmly,
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Tomslin</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 06:58
Kathy Kleiman, <<a href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi Tomslin,</p>
<p>I'm sorry that the Facilitated Dialogue is being
viewed by some as a failure. In our Closed Generics
Small Team meeting last week, it was made very clear
to us that the Chairs of the GNSO, GAC and ALAC did
not consider our work a failure, but a success that
resulted in important issues being raised. I share the
highlights of the "3 Chair Letter" and attach it to
this email:</p>
<p>- "As the Chairs of the three community groups that
agreed to participate in this dialog[ue, we are
extremely grateful to you as well as very proud of how
your work is a testament to the robustness and
viability of ICANN’s multistakeholder model. We would
like to thank you all for all the hard work,
collaborative effort, and time that you have put into
this project, resulting in a detailed draft framework
for potential policy work that reflects the many hours
of good faith discussions that took place."</p>
<p>- "We noted that there does not seem to be strong
community demand for closed generic gTLDs in the next
round, particularly if success in obtaining a gTLD in
this category will entail engaging in a complex
process with complicated requirements." <br>
</p>
<p>- "As a result of all these considerations and our
discussions, we believe that it is not necessary to
resolve the question of closed generic gTLDs as a
dependency for the next round of new gTLDs, and we
plan to inform the ICANN Board accordingly. We agree
with the ICANN Board (in its original invitation to
the GAC and the GNSO to engage in a facilitated
dialogue) that this topic is one for community policy
work, rather than a decision for the Board. <i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i>- As such and based on our collective belief that
there is neither the need nor the community
bandwidth to conduct additional work at this stage,
we also plan to ask that, for the next round, the
Board maintain the position that, unless and until
there is a community developed consensus policy in
place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive
registry access for "generic strings" to a single
person or entity and/or that person's or entity's
Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
Registry Agreement) should not proceed. [italics
added]</i><br>
</p>
<p>- "Finally, we also plan to inform the Board that any
future community policy work on this topic should be
based on the good work that has been done to date in
this facilitated dialogue."<b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b>----------------</b></p>
<p><b>So overall, we were told we did a good job on a
tough issue. I think the Small Group's Framework
advanced the dialogue and our joint understanding of
the competition problems associated with a single
company controlling a "closed generic" gTLD
significantly. <br>
</b></p>
<p>Frankly, I would advise the Council to support the
work and words of the GNSO Chair, and the
recommendation not to proceed with Closed Generic
applications in the next round under the circumstances
as outlined in the letter.</p>
<p>I urge you not to join in the criticism of some on
the GNSO - excellent and hard work was done here -
including our GNSO representatives John McElwaine,
Phillippe Fouquart, Jeff, Sophie and me. We worked
very hard, and pushed the understanding of this
issues, and ways to address it, to new levels. Our
work likely will become the basis of future
discussion. But, as Chris Disspain said at our second
Closed G meeting in ICANN77 (and he was on the Board
in the first round), not all issues deserve the huge
amount of time it would take to fully resolve them. <br>
</p>
<p>Best regards, Kathy <br>
</p>
<p>Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5 <br>
</p>
<div>On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear councillors,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is our stance on this? <br>
<br>
1. Overall, I think the declaration that the
Facilitated dialogue on Closed generics is a
failure is a win to NCSG as we warned council and
the board against taking this path.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the
letter to be addressed to the board asking to "<i><b>pause
any release of closed generics to a future
round might inadvertently be revising subpro
recommendation</b></i>" and that of Anne that
"<b><i>contains a subtle underlying policy
recommendation in favor of accepting new
Closed Generic applications in the next round
in the absence of developed policy</i></b>"
are both valid concerns we should pay close
attention to.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids
subtly modifying any consensus policy. She
proposes that "<b><i>Perhaps Council should simply
advise the Board that (1) Based on public
comment, the Facilitated Dialogue process
proved unsuccessful in this instance and (2)
Council does not believe a further policy
process would result in a consensus and
therefore, the Board should decide the issues,
including whether or not to accept Closed
Generic applications in the next round.</i></b>"<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warmly,<br>
</div>
Tomslin
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"></span></div>
<div><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">----------
Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Anne
ICANN via council</b> <span dir="auto"><<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17<br>
Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed
Generics<br>
To: DiBiase, Gregory <<a
href="mailto:dibiase@amazon.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dibiase@amazon.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG</a>
<<a href="mailto:COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org</a>>,
Avri Doria <<a
href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">avri.doria@board.icann.org</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Greg - The point you make
that there is as yet no official statement
from Council to the Board on this issue is an
important one. I think there is rough
consensus at the Council level that we don't
want the next round to be delayed by this
issue. I think two significant questions
remain as to the following:
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Issue #1. Whether to accept
applications for Closed Generics in the
next round or to pause such applications
pending future Board action or GNSO policy
development efforts. The draft
statements put forward so far would
endorse accepting applications and that is
also a policy statement which essentially
defines the "status quo" as permitting
such applications. (After all, closed
generic applications could block open
generic applications in that instance.)
This is tricky because the GAC has
reiterated that its previous Closed
Generic advice is "standing advice".
Would it be a solution for the Board to
simply accept that advice in relation to a
Closed Generic application and then accept
applications in the next round but
require the Applicant to prove that the
application serves a public interest goal
without specifying any standards that
apply for that proof? Or could the Board
say that it cannot accept the advice from
the GAC because it would require ICANN to
weigh the content of the Closed Generic
application and to police the public
interest goal issue during the term of the
contract award, meaning the requirement
of the GAC advice is out of scope for
ICANN's mission as overly content
-related? Maybe the Council should just
say "don't delay the next round" and
should not take a policy position on
whether or not to accept Closed Generic
applications when the next round opens,
i.e. leave that to the Board to decide
that policy issue as well?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Issue #2. Whether the Council itself
has taken a decision that it will not
proceed to develop Closed Generic policy
using an existing GNSO policy process. (I
think it's possible the Board has the
authority to request a formal policy
process - not sure whether Council has the
right to refuse to do so.) Did the
Council already decide it would not
undertake an existing policy process when
it authorized the Facilitated Dialogue
process? Does the statement need to
reflect a Council decision in this regard
and if so, does that need a separate vote
from Council? Are we risking delay of the
next round over the Council's failure to
act on this policy issue? The Board
invoked the Facilitated Dialogue process
outside normal policy development channels
but it appears that process failed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any thoughts re the above
considerations ?</div>
<div>Anne</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Anne Aikman-Scalese</div>
GNSO Councilor
<div>NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024</div>
<div><a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug
14, 2023 at 6:51 AM DiBiase, Gregory via
council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Kurt,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A couple thoughts
here:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1"
start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0in">We have
not communicated a decision or
feedback to Board yet, so we have
time to discuss our messaging (so
far, the SO/AC chairs have sent a
letter to the dialogue
participants and the dialogue
participants have agreed with the
letter’s sentiment). </li>
<li style="margin-left:0in">I think
council is in agreement that work
on closed generics cannot be a
dependency for the next round and
the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed
Generic gTLDs should not continue
to be the vehicle advancing this
work (please let me know if I’m
oversimplifying). If this is
correct, I think we can simplify
this issue to: how or if we should
frame the “status quo” to the
Board. More specifically, we can
take a closer look at this
proposed language from the letter
to the dialogue participants:
<ol style="margin-top:0in"
type="a" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0in">“until
there is community-developed
policy, the Board should
maintain the position from the
2012 round (i.e., any
applications seeking to impose
exclusive registry access for
"generic strings" to a single
person or entity and/or that
person's or entity's
Affiliates (as defined in
Section 2.9(c) of the Registry
Agreement) should not
proceed;”</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li style="margin-left:0in">Perhaps
we should modify this part to say
closer to: “given that there is no
community-developed policy on
closed generics (i.e., any
applications seeking to impose
exclusive registry access for
"generic strings" to a single
person or entity and/or that
person's or entity's Affiliates
(as defined in Section 2.9(c) of
the Registry Agreement), we
acknowledge that the Board may not
allow closed generics to proceed
(in line with their position from
the 20201 round) until policy is
developed.” In other words, we
don’t need to instruct the Board
on what the status quo is, rather,
we are informing them that a
policy on closed generics has not
been finalized and we recommend
not delaying the next round until
this policy work is completed.</li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m sure I have
point 3 wrong as I am not as
well-versed in subpro as others, but
we can discuss further to make sure
we are all aligned.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
council <<a
href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>kurt <a
href="http://kjpritz.com"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">kjpritz.com</a>
via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 13,
2023 7:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul McGrady <<a
href="mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">paul@elstermcgrady.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Avri Doria <<a
href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">avri.doria@board.icann.org</a>>;
GNSO Council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXTERNAL]
[council] Update on Closed
Generics</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<table
style="border-collapse:collapse"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
border="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:15.25pt">
<td
style="width:842.35pt;border:1.5pt
solid
rgb(237,125,49);padding:0in
5.4pt;height:15.25pt"
width="1123" valign="top">
<p><b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black;background:rgb(255,255,153)">CAUTION</span></b><span
style="color:black;background:rgb(255,255,153)">: This email originated
from outside of the
organization. Do not
click links or open
attachments unless you
can confirm the sender
and know the content is
safe.</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Replying to
Paul (Hi Paul): </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As pointed
out by Anne (and Rubens in a
parallel email exchange), the
question of status quo is not
settled. That is the reason the
SubPro working group
specifically asked the Board to
settle the question. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board
essentially created a new,
temporary policy when it
introduced an additional
restriction into the criteria
for delegating new TLDs. (I say
temporary because the
restriction was time-limited in
a way.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The SubPro
final report does not recommend
an extension of that restriction
by way of a “pause,” the report
specifically recommends
something else. By recommending
a pause, the SO/AC leadership
would be amending the final
report recommendation. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wish I
could be clearer. That somehow
eludes me at the moment. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kurt</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 11
Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne
ICANN <<a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi
Kurt and Paul, </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As
I see it, the issue
has come back to what
constitutes the
"status quo". This
issue was hotly
debated in the Sub Pro
Working Group. Some
maintained that there
was no prohibition on
the applications for
Closed Generics
because none was
contained in the 2012
AGB. Others maintained
that due to the GAC
Advice and Board
direction to "pause"
pending policy
development, the
"status quo" is
actually a "pause"
which would be
continued at the start
of the next round.
The risk I see for the
ICANN Board in the
latter situation is
that those existing
applications for
Closed Generics (which
are on hold) as well
as any future
applications to be
taken in the next
round (not prohibited
by this
recommendation) would
build a case for
Request for
Reconsideration if the
Board does not allow
those applications to
move forward. For
example, the grounds
might be Applicant
Freedom of Expression
under the Human Rights
Core Value and the
underlying principle
of Applicant Freedom
of Expression that has
been affirmed by
subsequent PDP work
and is now being
confirmed in the Sub
Pro IRT process. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another
factor is that the
Board has consistently
declined to make
policy. And I'm not
certain that the GNSO
Council actually has
the authority to
direct the Board to
make a Closed Generic
policy. Are you
gentlemen certain that
this is kosher?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Certainly
I agree this issue
should not hold up the
next round but of
course there is a year
to go. If the Board
is willing to take a
decision on this, that
is one scenario. If
the Board is not
willing to take a
decision on this
and/or is concerned
about the risk of
expensive litigation
over a possible ban,
then that is another
scenario. Has anyone
spoken with our Sub
Pro Board reps about
this approach? (They
are copied here.)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank
you,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anne</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Anne
Aikman-Scalese</p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">GNSO
Councilor </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">NomCom
Non-Voting
2022-2024</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at
10:15 AM Paul McGrady
via council <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in
0in 0in
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Hi
Kurt,</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Thanks
for this. I’m
not sure I am
understanding
your concern.
One of the basic
tenants that
everyone in the
SubPro PDP
agreed to was
that, absent any
changes captured
in the
Recommendations,
that the status
quo would
prevail. All
the letter does
is ask for
that. I feel
better about
sticking with
the WG’s
inability to
change the
status quo than
I do asking the
Board to write a
policy when the
community
couldn’t agree
to anything,
even after two
valiant
efforts. We
tried in the WG,
we couldn’t get
there, the
status quo
should prevail.
We tried again
at the request
of the Board at
the SO/AC level,
we couldn’t get
there, the
status quo
should prevail.
The letter
leaves open the
possibility of
future community
work on this but
notes there is
no bandwidth or
appetite to do
so and we don’t
want the next
round held up.
Help me
understand you
concern about
asking the Board
to maintain the
status quo
until/if the
community comes
up with a policy
on these. </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Best,</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Paul</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid
rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
council <<a
href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf
Of </b>kurt <a
href="http://kjpritz.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">kjpritz.com</a>
via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Thursday,
August 10,
2023 3:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>
John McElwaine
<<a
href="mailto:john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b>
GNSO Council
<<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [council]
Update on
Closed
Generics</p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hi John: <br>
<br>
Thanks for
taking time to
make this
detailed
report, and
also thanks to
the
well-intentioned
people that
participated
in the effort,
in particular,
our GNSO
representatives.
I am
not surprised
by the
outcome. <br>
<br>
I am surprised
by the
recommendation
to pause any
release of
closed generics
to a future
round. Such an
action would
turn the
consensus-based policy
development
process on its
head.</span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">1. I don’t
understand how
the SO/AC
leaders have
the authority
to revise the
PDP final
report
recommendation. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The PDP final
report
(approved by
each of the
Councillors)
stated that
the closed
generic
decision
should be left
up to the
ICANN Board.
The
final report
did
not recommend
the
conflicting
direction that
the closed
generics
ban be
continued
until a future
round.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The Board made
an attempt to
(re)involve
the community
by
inviting the
GAC and GNSO
to develop a
solution. With
that effort
closed, we
should revert
back to the
final report
recommendations.
We should not
change
the consensus
position
developed. Do
we think the
PDP team would
have approved
a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional round? (No.)
</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">We have
thoroughly
discussed the
conditions
under which a
Council approved final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is
not one
of them. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">2.
Continuing
the ban on
closed
generics
effectively
abandons
the consensus
policy model
of decision
making.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">The new gTLD
policy
developments,
in 2007-8 and
2016-21 have
asked the
questions: (1)
should there
be a round of
TLDs and, if
yes, (2)
what restrictions
/
conditions should
be in place to
address SSR,
IP,
and competition
concerns.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Restrictions and
conditions
enjoying
consensus
support
were implemented
in the
program. (An
illustrative
example is the
RPM IRT,
whose recommendations
were ratified
by the
community
STI.)</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">During
discussions on
closed
generics,
there were
people
for barring
them, allowing
them, and
allowing them
with
restrictions.
Pausing
any introduction
of
closed generics
essentially
creates a
policy
advocated by
a minority
(and in any
case not
enjoying
consensus
support). The
final
report indicated
as much.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">This result
provides an
incentive to
avoid
compromise.
Going forward,
those wanting
to implement
an unsupported
policy can
refuse
to compromise
through a PDP
and subsequent
ad-hoc
discussions
with the hope
that leadership will “give up” and implement unsupported restrictions.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">3. The
decision to
ban closed
generics for
an additional
round contradicts the one step the Board took.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt">The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team
established
guardrails, prohibiting
a model that
would either
ban or provide
for the
unrestricted release
of closed
generics. We
cannot be sure
this is where
the Board
will land
absent input
from the
GAC-GNSO
effort, but we
should not
erase the
chance that
the Board
would develop
a balanced
decision.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt">Two additional points:</span></p>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
1. I do
not believe
that deferring
the issue to
the Board will
delay the next
round, despite
the recent
GAC-GNSO
detour. The
Board has more
than a year to
make a call. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
style="margin:5pt
0in 5pt 30pt">
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
2. I do
not believe
the Board is
exceeding
their
authority in
making the
call. The GNSO
specifically
assigned the
task to the
Board as part
of
their policy
management
responsibility.
In any event,
the Board
established
that authority
when it paused
closed
generics in
2012,
contradicting
the Council-approved policy. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><br>
If given the
opportunity to
participate in
a discussion
on this issue,
I would oppose
the
recommendation
that the issue
should be
paused, and
closed generics
banned for
the reasons
stated above.
I would
support the
final report
recommendation
that the issue
be decided by
the Board. </span>
</p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt"> <br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Kurt</span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"> </p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
10 Aug 2023,
at 7:33 am,
John McElwaine
via council
<<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Dear
Councilors,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">As
GNSO Council
liaison to the
ALAC-GAC-GNSO
Facilitated
Dialogue on
Closed Generic
gTLDs, I
wanted to
update you on
the latest
developments
on this
project. On 7
July 2023,
after
discussions
amongst
themselves
that I also
participated
in, Sebastien
(in his
capacity as
GNSO Chair),
Jonathan Zuck
(ALAC Chair)
and Nico
Caballero (GAC
Chair) sent
the attached
letter to the
participants
in the
dialogue. For
reasons set
out in the
letter, and in
response to
questions that
the dialogue
participants
had referred
to them (also
noted in the
letter), the
three Chairs
have
collectively
decided that
it will be
neither
necessary to
continue with
the dialogue
to develop a
final
framework nor
initiate
further policy
development
work on this
topic.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
dialogue
participants
have discussed
the Chairs’
joint letter
and agreed to
conclude their
work as
requested,
including
producing an
outcomes
report to
ensure that
the work to
date is
thoroughly
documented.
Participants
also agreed to
forward the
Chairs’ letter
to all the
commenters
that submitted
input on the
draft
framework
(viz., Tucows,
RySG, BC,
ISPCPC, ALAC
and GAC), and
have invited
those
commenters
that wish to
engage with
the group to
join their
next call to
clarify any
significant
concerns they
raised in the
feedback they
provided.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
staff team
that is
supporting the
dialogue is
currently
preparing a
draft outcomes
report for the
group to
review. The
group intends
for the
outcomes
report to
serve as an
introduction
and summary of
their work,
including
expressly
clarifying
that the draft
framework the
group
published in
June 2023 does
not reflect
agreed
outcomes but,
rather, was a
product of
compromise
that was
reached in the
interests of
soliciting
community
feedback on
the various
elements and
points
included in
the draft
framework. The
outcomes
report will
also include
all the
community
feedback that
were submitted
in full, links
to the group’s
community wiki
space and
other relevant
documentation,
and the
participants’
feedback on
the consensus
building
techniques and
approaches
that were used
for the
dialogue.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
group hopes to
wrap up its
work by
September, in
line with its
previous plan
to conclude
the dialogue
and final
framework by
end-Q3 2023. I
understand
that
Sebastien,
Nico and
Jonathan will
also be
sending a
separate
communication
to the ICANN
Board that
reflects the
decision they
took and, as
stated in the
letter,
expressing the
collective
view that:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(1)
closed generic
gTLDs should
not be viewed
as a
dependency for
the next
round;</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(2)
until there is
community-developed policy, the Board should maintain the position from
the 2012 round
(i.e., any
applications
seeking to
impose
exclusive
registry
access for
"generic
strings" to a
single person
or entity
and/or that
person's or
entity's
Affiliates (as
defined in
Section 2.9(c)
of the
Registry
Agreement)
should not
proceed<b>;</b><span> </span>and</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">(3)
should the
community
decide in the
future to
resume the
policy
discussions,
this should be
based on the
good work that
has been done
to date in the
facilitated
dialogue.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Sebastien
and I will be
happy to
answer any
questions you
may have on
the letter,
the Chairs’
decision and
the proposed
next steps.
You may also
wish to check
in with the
representatives
that each of
your
Stakeholder
Groups
appointed to
the dialogue
for further
information.<span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Finally,
I am sure I
speak for all
of us when I
say that we
are very
grateful to
the dialogue
participants
and the staff
support team
for all the
hard work and
consensus
building that
resulted in a
detailed and
substantive,
if
preliminary,
draft
framework. I
also hope that
the
participants’
feedback on
the methods
and techniques
used in the
dialogue, as
well as other
lessons
learned from
the
experience,
will provide
the GNSO
Council and
community with
useful
information
that we can
put into
practice in
future policy
discussions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Best
regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">John</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"> <b><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">Confidentiality
Notice</span></b><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
This message
is intended
exclusively
for the
individual or
entity to
which it is
addressed.
This
communication
may contain
information
that is
proprietary,
privileged,
confidential
or otherwise
legally exempt
from
disclosure. If
you are not
the named
addressee, you
are not
authorized to
read, print,
retain, copy
or disseminate
this message
or any part of
it. If you
have received
this message
in error,
please notify
the sender
immediately
either by
phone
(800-237-2000)
or reply to
this e-mail
and delete all
copies of this
message.</span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><Message
from ALAC GAC
GNSO Chairs
to Closed
Generics
Facilitated
Dialogue
Participants -
FINAL - 5
August 2023
(002).pdf><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
council
mailing list<br>
</span><a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">council@gnso.icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span><a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(</span><a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">) and the website
Terms of
Service (</span><a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</span></a><span
style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif">). 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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div
style="border:1pt
solid
rgb(156,101,0);padding:2pt"
id="m_2317932858697995501m_3420877618762687111m_3446894358639417709m_-7502727125778583484footer">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:rgb(255,235,156)"> <span style="color:black">This
email
originated
from outside
the firm.
Please use
caution.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website
Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
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.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>