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

[farzaneh badii]

Farzaneh


On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 9:34 AM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:

> 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
>

Kathy, I don't know about that dialogue but we certainly had problems with
the extra working group on Red Cross Identifiers  that was certainly a
mistake that led to even more reserved names for an organization that
doesn't have great checks and balances in place. Nobody can register
redcross.watch.

> 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 agree with these principles, in principle. but again this is turning into
an ad hoc PDP?.

>
> - 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.
>

Oh that's interesting. Why should we have closed generics then at all? why
should we have a dialogue?

>

>
> - 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/20220522/96b4164a/attachment.htm>