[NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call - Closed Generics discussion per Manju's questions

Kathy Kleiman kathy at DNRC.TECH
Tue May 17 08:33:44 EEST 2022


Hi Farzi,

I see your concerns, and share them, but I don't see the GAC suggesting 
a full-blown PDP. What their letter of April 22nd references is the 
GNSO/GAC discussion in 2017 of IGO and Red Cross Identifiers which was a 
dialogue with members of the Board, leaders of Council and 
representatives of GAC, 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-botterman-22apr22-en.pdf

The questions Manju raises are good ones. For my part, I think:

- the Facilitator should be a neutral one and brought in from outside of 
ICANN. Closed Generics is not a difficult or a technical issue, but a 
competitive and antitrust one. I think a neutral facilitator could help 
the parties come together more quickly than anyone from the Community - 
which has become polarized on this issue.

- Composition of the small group for the dialogue must include the full 
range of GNSO views on the Closed Generics issues, and that would 
definitely include NCSG (as writer of the only recent letter of dissent 
on the Closed Generics proposal, included by Council to Board, 
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/santos-to-fouquart-14apr22-en.pdf 


- I do not think the Proposed Parameters are correct.  They eliminate 
the "Status Quo" - which is the way we did things in the First Round. In 
the first round, because no one could figure out what it meant to apply 
for and operate a new gTLD as a Closed Generic to serve the "public 
interest," and after a huge outcry from the ICANN Community and small 
organizations around the world, the Board banned Closed Generics and 
dozens of proposed applicants like Amazon and Google changed their 
applications from closed to open, e.g., for .blog, .search, .cloud, 
.app, etc.  It was a good outcome!

*For the last six years, in every other new gTLD Review I have been part 
of (both working groups), the status quo is always the starting point 
for every new gTLD policy matter. *If the status quote worked in 2012, 
then it would work now unless there was a clear consensus to change the 
rule. Hundreds of new gTLD rules were decided this way in RPM WG and 
Subpro WG.  Here too, our position should be that the ban on Closed 
Generics must remain unless this dialogue can find its way to agreement. 
It's widely unpopular with the biggest US companies, but it is a fair 
and very consistent starting point. They can't change the rules without 
consensus just because they want to.

- Absolutely, let's have discussions with GAC and ALAC!  In the Hague, 
and even better, before the Hague.

Best, Kathy

On 5/17/2022 12:33 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Manju,
>
> What GAC is suggesting is a full blown PDP on its own. In their letter 
> they want to create another process to build consensus. They are 
> re-opening the issue. They also want to have an "EPDP" ( I did warn 
> the council members at the time when they were coming up with multiple 
> EPDPs that it was a recipe for overburdening us and re-opening issues.)
>
> We need to be cognizant of the dangers of re-opening issues and our 
> recommendation about criteria should be in these lines:
> The GAC wanted to have a Dialogue about Closed Generics. We need to 
> have a dialogue and not a full blown PDP process.Therefore having a 
> facilitator, representatives from each stakeholders etc is formalizing 
> this process to unacceptable degrees. If the GNSO council wants to 
> just use its power to convene another PDP or EPDP then it should say 
> so. If it's just a dialogue, why do we have to  get a facilitator, 
> have a representation etc... lets just have a meeting with them - with 
> key people from the PDP- that's what a dialogue means. A dialogue 
> doesn't mean another PDP.
>
> We need to talk to GAC directly about this and I suggest we do that 
> during this upcoming ICANN 74. Can we arrange that? Been a long time 
> since we have not had a meaningful one on convo with them which was a 
> mistake in my opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:01 PM 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju at nii.org.tw> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     As promised in the policy call yesterday, I'm circulating the
>     tasks the Council small team on closed generics is working on:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VtFiY-rLgP3r3uCaufgRA69DVoSYIBIyP_cLIB9PDdI/edit#
>
>     We have been through the first 2 tasks but nothing is set in stone
>     yet.
>     We will start working on 'task 3', which is to 'provide guidance
>     on the conditions, parameters, and methodology for the dialogue,
>     which will be subject to mutual agreement with the GAC'.
>
>     There are 3 questions I'd like to get input from our NCSG members:
>
>       * how do you think of the criteria for the facilitator, anything
>         to add or delete?
>       * what do we think would be the best composition for this future
>         GNSO group that is going to talk with GAC?
>       * Do we want to have some side discussions with the GAC and ALAC
>         on this issue? since our position is kind of aligned, it might
>         be nice to collaborate.
>
>
>     Will highly appreciate any feedback!
>
>     Best,
>     Manju
>
>
>
>     On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:59 AM Brenda Brewer
>     <brenda.brewer at icann.org> wrote:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         Please find attendees, replay, and chat details for
>         the NCSG Monthly Policy Call held Monday, 16 May at 11:30
>         UTC. The transcript will be sent upon completion.  Thank you!
>
>         Kind regards,
>
>         Andrea and Brenda
>
>         *ATTENDEES: *Benjamin Akinmoyeje, Bolutife Adisa, Bruna
>         Martins dos Santos, Bukola Oronti, Cindyneia Cantanhede, David
>         Morar, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito, Farell Folly, GZ Kabir, Juan
>         Manuel Rojas, Kathy Kleiman, Manju Chen, Poncelet Ileleji,
>         Rafik Dammak, Raymond Mamattah, Razoana Moslam, Shah Zahidur
>         Rahman, Shavkat Sabiro, Taiwo Peter Akinremi, Tomslin
>         Samme-Nlar, Vernatius Ezeama | *ICANN org: *Andrea Glandon,
>         Brenda Brewer, Carlos Reyes
>
>         *ZOOM Replay Link: Here
>         <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/jGvk2dE8n0EdRFypPIcVUV_XfH7lTt1yzzyV6H66DJkw3qET0eN7VntQZLz12tofNHkuTmoM61WlII8-.9dmu0QZWa-bctCLF>***
>
>         **
>
>         *ZOOM Audio Link: Here
>         <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/FpG4Rop0xRM9MqC8p4uiocna_XQdCnwO59eEyj9Zbsuirn4Y9NiM2uSUqbNKNzPMbn-wSgPdzfGmHjsZ.I5mZ5rRMUYzvbClv>***
>
>         **
>
>         *ZOOM Chat Link: Here
>         <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/myC9Vp-Uf_7VTpQRSvfgHPJmj7XGSr4K1f4zgiLVvkzqml2bvDR0P0A_xX8aoVm14J8xTr4OpzB7UiOq.Dv1hz6sCOoXQEO7o>***
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20220517/86a74e20/attachment.htm>


More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list