[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Update on Closed Generics
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Wed Aug 16 23:58:31 EEST 2023
Hi Tomslin,
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:
- "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."
- "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."
- "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. /
/
/- 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 communitydeveloped
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]/
- "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."*
*
*----------------*
*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.
*
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.
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.
Best regards, Kathy
Attachment: 3 Chairs Letter Aug 5
On 8/15/2023 4:55 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Dear councillors,
>
> What is our stance on this?
>
> 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.
>
> 2. I think the concern Kurt raises that the letter to be addressed to
> the board asking to "/*pause any release of closed generics to a
> future round might inadvertently be revising subpro recommendation*/"
> and that of Anne that "*/contains a subtle underlying policy
> recommendation in favor of accepting new Closed Generic applications
> in the next round in the absence of developed policy/*" are both valid
> concerns we should pay close attention to.
>
> 3. However, I like Anne's proposal that avoids subtly modifying any
> consensus policy. She proposes that "*/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./*"
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Anne ICANN via council* <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 02:17
> Subject: Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
> To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> Cc: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG <COUNCIL at gnso.icann.org>, Avri Doria
> <avri.doria at board.icann.org>
>
>
> 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:
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Any thoughts re the above considerations ?
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
> GNSO Councilor
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 6:51 AM DiBiase, Gregory via council
> <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> A couple thoughts here:
>
> 1. 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).
> 2. 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:
> 1. “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;”
> 3. 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com> via council
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 7:54 PM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri.doria at board.icann.org>; GNSO Council
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> *CAUTION*: 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.
>
> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN
> <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15 AM Paul McGrady via council
> <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt,
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *kurt kjpritz.com <http://kjpritz.com/> via council
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>
> Hi John:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 1. I don’t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the
> authority to revise the PDP final report recommendation.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 2. Continuing the ban on closed generics
> effectively abandons the consensus policy model of
> decision making.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 3. The decision to ban closed generics for an
> additional round contradicts the one step the Board took.
>
> 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.
>
> Two additional points:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kurt
>
> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council
> <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a
> dependency for the next round;
>
> (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*;*and
>
> (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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
>
> *Confidentiality Notice*
> 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.
>
> <Message from ALAC GAC GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics
> Facilitated Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August
> 2023
> (002).pdf>_______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of
> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the
> ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the
> website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit
> the Mailman link above to change your membership
> status or configuration, including unsubscribing,
> setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
> altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use
> caution.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
> processing of your personal data for purposes of
> subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN
> Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
> Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting
> digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether
> (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
> list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
> Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
> and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman
> link above to change your membership status or configuration,
> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/8b5efeac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Message from ALAC GAC GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 124016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230816/8b5efeac/attachment.pdf>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list