<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">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">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">dibiase@amazon.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG</a>
<<a href="mailto:COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">COUNCIL@gnso.icann.org</a>>,
Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">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">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">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of
</b>kurt <a href="http://kjpritz.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">paul@elstermcgrady.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri.doria@board.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">avri.doria@board.icann.org</a>>;
GNSO Council <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">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">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">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">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>kurt
<a href="http://kjpritz.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> GNSO Council
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">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"><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"><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"><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"><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">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">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">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">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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">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">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">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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">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">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">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>