Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

and short turn around on comments please

May we have the link to the doc please?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1908811665

Thank you.

Amen

does this language parallel GAC language?

hello all , sorry for being bit late

Seems clear that this is not referring to the same refund schedule. If not why call it out as the applicant could just use the standard refund schedule?

agree Donna

Applicant should be able to withdraw and get a full refund

Not worth trying to figure out the details now. I always would prefer specificity but no way to have that here without knowing what the change will be. Its too late to create a whole new structure now

Leaving details to later is a cop-out if we are not sure it is implementable.

Can't raise my hand but would like to comment

Perhaps if we say it must be within a certain amount of days of the announced change

+1 Donna

Seems like you should get your money back if ICANN pulls a switcheroo.

they still have to be impacted by the material change for te serendipitous withdrawee to get a refund. In the closed g scenario the applicant withdrawing obviously has to have applied for a closed G

+1 Marc

It's important to acknowledge that the investment of applying for a new gtld/s is more than just the $185k application fee.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=123470843

If its a brand TLD then it should NOT be operated by anyone other than the Brand Owner without the Barnd Owner's control

How will the EBERO protect the brand?

if the brand dies, there is no reason for ebero for the TLD in question

+1 Alan. There is no harm here that ICANN needs to get involved in.

Hand

I'd prefer we didn't change the name. We've been using this term throughout

EBERO is a post mortal porcess

Agree Susan, let's not change the name now.

process, so there is no reason to support zombie TLD for the dead brand TLD

I think we should change the name here => Operational protections for registry database.

If a registry goes down, the content still exits on a nameserver....the content is not erased. Its just end users can get to it without knowing the IP address

sorry, the content exists on a hosting server :)

Registrant protection is most relevant to the purpose of the existing policy. The EBERO does not serve any relevance to brand TLD model.

It seems there are circumstances where a .brand might need help... right, technical failures

I also believe this is firmly about registrant protection. it's about ensuring that those who have built their digital presence on a domain within a TLD that fails, do not lose that digital presence. recognising the cost to transition to a new domain is not insubstantial

They’re not preserving content. Content lives with hosting companies. Registries just resolve queries as to where content is hosted

also it will create legal risks for EBEROs and the whole idea

If the registrant doesn’t pay their hosting bill the content goes away

There may be a need for a future PDP about retirement of gTLDs, similar to retiring ccTLDs. If a 'brand' at some point no longer exists because of consolidation or something else, what happens?

for example - court orders the brand to shut down the TLD … and EBERO keeping the zombie copy will do something wrong

@ Kathy - this is the Brand's problem. It shouldn't be forced to have this protection. This is help that is not wanted

EBERO is not a protection for a TLD - it is a death of a TLD, and just zombie copy of the last state of the TLD

+1 to Susan

the dreaded ( and seemingly random) double mute ...

agreed Susan

OK

Tx Susan

+1 Susan.

new hand

Thx @Susan

It reminds me of miss-selling insurance - it’s not relevant and probably can’t make any claim anyway

ok, Maxim, you are after Paul

@Susan +1

Not raised by me, raised by ICANN Org :-)

Really good point Paul.

is .wed still alive? how much $$ has icann spent on that one?

@Jim - yes, and they spend very little....

strictly saying , after EBERO the brand is not a registry (due to a loss of the Registry contract)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=2136691260

for a generic TLD - a TLD could be given to the better Registry (but not for a Brand, if nothing really weird happens )

Agree, Maxim

and hopefully a good block of time for this topic :-)

Back to the sheet used to discuss Registrant Protections: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=53966201

a question from the grammar perspective, is it possible to slightly ban ? I thought it is a binary process - yes or no

They said specifically that what the Board did last time is not binding on the future.

But they did make clear that the Board was not interested in a complicated process based on subjective determinations that will result in di[psutes

GAC Beijing Communique - April 11, 2018 - 2. ExclusiveAccess• Forstringsrepresentinggenericterms,exclusiveregistryaccessshouldserveapublicinterestgoal.• Inthecurrentround,theGAChasidentifiedthefollowingnon-­‐exhaustivelistofstringsthatitconsiderstobegenericterms,wheretheapplicantiscurrentlyproposingtoprovideexclusiveregistryaccess§ .antivirus,.app,.autoinsurance,.baby,.beauty,.blog,.book,.broker,.carinsurance,.cars,.cloud,.courses,.cpa,.cruise,.data,.dvr,.financialaid,.flowers,.food,.game,.grocery,.hair,.hotel,.hotels.insurance,.jewelry,.mail,.makeup,.map,.mobile,.motorcycles,.movie,.music,.news,.phone,.salon,.search,.shop,.show,.skin,.song,.store,.tennis,.theater,.theatre,.tires,.tunes,.video,.watches,.weather,.yachts,.クラウド[cloud],.ストア[store],.セール[sale],.ファッション[fashion],.家電[consumerelectronics],.手表[watches],.書籍[book],.珠宝[jewelry],.通販[onlineshopping],.食品[food]

Isn't banning closed generics the ultimate interference with content?

What is a legitimate public interest goal? That's the whole problem'

Agree Marc, there is no agreement on that point.

Its hard to argue that the list pasted by Steve should be removed from the general public use to allow for a closed generic

Sorry, Kathy. Not Steve.

@ Elaine - I don't think its hard to argue that. But we disagree on this point

The Board could decide to reject the GAC advice on closed generics on the back of a PDP that could not reach agreement on this point.

.movie?

@Elaine - same reasoning applies for all

+1 to Paul. Enough already

We did need to give it all one last review based on the public comments which we have now reviewed

Happy to address that right now.

HAND

@Kathy - or banning them

Agreed Jeff

well if you all agree to recommend at this stage banning closed generics that is an agreement ;-)

We have no agreement on anything

The Board has to have a 60% majority to reject GAC Advice. Not sure that failure to develop policy within a PDP can serve as a reason to reject GAC Advice. Issues of the Public Interest are actually inherent in the ICANN Board fiduciary duty. Agree with Alan and Kathy that GAC Advice is standing Consensus Advice. from a practical standpoint, if we don't have agreement, the Board will likely send GNSO "back to the drawing Board" as to what would serve the Public Interest in the Closed Generic context.

Global public interest even MORE difficult to define. Same in CHina as in Israel?

it might change over time (the global public interest)

…..”If you apply for a closed generic please note it will be unpredictable”

Avri said there is no policy on closed generics, so the 2012 status can’t be assumed to allow for closed generics. Banning was temporary policy.

HAND

Banning was a temporary decision, it was not a policy.

a poll?

No poll

if there is no consensus support, then how can we make a recommendation?

Not talking about a poll. Talking about measuring levels of support (in accordance with the GNSO Operating Procedures) for the various options.

@Jeff - we have to be very careful to no claim there is consensus or rough consensus on this or any other wording that is going to represent to the community that the WG came to the conclusion that 2012 AGB should be changed in some way. This is the point in the process where we have to trust you and CLO to respect the non-agreement we have reached.

+1 Marc

Marc, +1

Agree Paul and Marc

Were not seeing ANY degree of consensus other than your agreeing to disagree at this point @Paul but we DO want to put something about the non decision (if that is the case as it seems) in the final report thus this airing of the topic again

no consensus does not mean no result, it is a result of non-consensus

+1, but Greg has a good point that we should explain why we cannot reach agreement

Except that then we will be arguing with those who want to hijack the reasoning for no consnensus to make their point

exactly @Annebeth

Haven't they been suspended for 12 years already.

cryogenic actually ;-)

No consensus is most accurate

maybe the status quo - until the next time?

@CLO, it certainly is OK to put the details of non-agreement to change the 2012 AGB in the Deliberations section, but not to pretend there are levels of agreement that might rise to a rough consensus that would convert one of the 3 non-agreed options into a Recommendation.

@Greg - no agreement on banning these and calling it a suspension.

@Paul you have not hear the term 'Rough Consensus"from either Jeff or I

heard

We do not have consensus on Greg's approach. Its an end run around no consensus

HAND

Suspension can be a good solution

We have no consensus on anyhong in this WG atm

anything

Suspension makes sense

A suspension is not a ban. Consensus on an agreed result is not an end run around no consensus.

sorry and I mean on this topic

NOT overall ;-)

@CLO - just being careful here since this is the first we have heard of the idea of ranking the three ideas.

@Alan +1 - no poll

Noted @Paul

Do not support a indefinite suspension. This is one of the most active PDP WGs with consistent attendance. Discussing this for another two to three years isn't going to change much.

HAND

No consensus is a divergence of opinion where no result can be found.

I could support a suspension. There is significant amount of implementation work that will need to be done and that allows for more work on it.

“Suspension until a policy can be created” not by this group obviously

Reminder to lower hand once you have asked your question.

I got you Marc after Paul...unless you want to pre-empt him this time

@Alan - respectfully, delegitimizing the work of this WG by calling it "unbalanced" is very troubling.

I will let Paul jump on the grenade first

OK for Marc to go first

The *most* we can do is make a recommendation if there was (and there is not) any degree of agreement for such

:-)

I'll go an be quick

+1 Greg - saying nothing at all is just asking for litigation against ICANN. If we say "suspension for further policy development", we are telling applicants you are taking a risk and we are limiting risk for ICANN.. Applicants in the next round can get priority by applying cause no other applications will be permitted.

We can also recommend that this be worked on and a permanent result should be arrived at.

+1 Anne

FYI, the GAC Advice does not include the term "Global Public Interest"....It states: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a publicinterest goal.'

Well noted @Jeff... Thank you

@ Jeff - I am sure that different GAC members have VERY different ideas of what is in the public interest

We are not here to protect ICANN from litigation

Thanks @Anne

what's the point of suspension? isn't that just a ban by another name in practice. are we seriously suggesting a new PDP will have a different outcome to this one?

@Anne - predictability is essential

We have know way to understand the harm. What about rather than an suspension, a number of closed generics be allowed in order to better understand whether the perceived harm is real or are there benefits to Internet users and innovation in the domain name space.

We have no consensus that Closed Generics should be allowed as well.

@Marc we have focussed on *predictability* throughout most of our work and it is an overarching goal of our work for the record

@Paul - you get priority and you are not banned.

@Paul - we have rejected that argument too -

The WG recommendation is not to allow for Closed Generics. That’s a leap

in light of all that happened on this issue AFTER the 2012 Guidebook

Suspension can be limited until the next Sub Pro or even earlier; it can be very clear that we don’t want it to be permanent.

The fallback on this topic could just as easily be 2012 implementation versus the 2012 silence on the topic. In all other areas, 2012 IMPLEMENTATION is the fallback.

+1 Greg

We hear you @Paul

but we hear everyone

There is nothing keeping the Board from sending this back. They can send it back as an EPDP.

good question

If we could give any guidelines we could provide then we wouldn't be where we are

Get disinterested parties to consider the question.

future group will have future charter, so there is no need to try

no

@Maxim - if we can provide some guidance to the board on "how to resolve this issue" as opposed to what the resolution is, then that could be helpful

ANy future group should surely refer to our discourse and experiences post 2012 Guidebook and re last Rpund as well as all other discussions on the matter

Agree with Cheryl

+1 to Cheryl

I think there is a difference between a "Closed Generic that serves a Public Interest" versus determining that a Closed Generic is "in the Global Public Interest". Further policy development efforts should be focused on the former.

We could refer consideration of an Objection mechanism to further policy development via EPDP.

in the next 7 minutes....

Making policy decisions based on actual data, such as Donna proposes, would be valuable. Presently, we are simply relying on assumptions.

+1 Anne

Exactly Martin, at least give the applicant the opportunity to justify or speak to their business case and explain any public interest aspects.

Perhaps such idea could be included in the charter of a EPDP, Martin

Aspirational work by hypothetical future group + suspension = ban

@ Martin, perhaps calling in economists and ethicists for their opinion

+1 tp paul

Avri and Becky made it clear that the last round suspension isn't still in affect.

Cannot support a suspension.

The trouble is Greg that the suspension creates a de facto status quo then. future work will be stymied by those who have no incentive to compromise since the new status quo suits them just fire

fine

@ Greg - So is ICANN moving to a level below consensus based approach to creating policy?

+1 Susan

+2 Susan

Marc, we have had that level as long I’ve been around. It’s called “strong support but significant opposition.”

@Paul - I don't agree with your conclusion about what Avri and Becky said. All they said was "it's not policy". It's a question of how 2012 was implemented. We should recommend EPDP now so it gets started faster versus leaving it for months and ending up with the Board sending it back to GNSO

And that is considered a level of consensus as I recall.

2 minute drill! Red zone!!

I don't think there is strong support for a suspension. And its also an end run to get no closed generics

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thanks Terri

I think there is pretty diverse support for a suspension.

@kathy - no, there isn't

Tx Jeff and Cheryl!

@ Kathy - I disagree

Yes there is

thanks all

I think there is pretty diverse support for no suspension.

You all have actually achieved a great deal today people THANK you ALL

We wont know until we find out.

Fortunately your thought is not enough to make decisions

We herd you all

Thanks all, interesting discussion

Topics for Thursday, 10 December 0300 UTC: Topic 21: Reserved Names; Topic 21.1: Geographic Names; Topic 4: Different TLD Types

there is pretty diverse support for suspension and further policy work recommendation

+1 donna - agree, no suspension