Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
and neither do i.
As a reminder, there will be a webinar today at 18:00 UTC.
Yes this meeting is for 60 minutes due to a conflcit
In regards to 2.7.3. (closed generics) I suggest we stop trying to handle this as an review item based on the 2007 policy advice. instead it seems the board asked us in 2015 to create new policy advice. So in my mind it's a different animal than all other items we handled so far.
186 of them
all of them were made publice
1.Will the TLD be operated as an exclusiveaccess registry? An exclusive access registry is defined as a registry restricted to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s Affiliates (asdefined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement).YesNoDoes your current applicationstate that the TLD will be operated as an exclusive registry? YesNo3. Do you have a pending change request regarding exclusive access?
reformatted 1.Will the TLD be operated as an exclusiveaccess registry? An exclusive access registry is defined as a registry restricted to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s Affiliates (asdefined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement).YesNo 2. Does your current applicationstate that the TLD will be operated as an exclusive registry? YesNo 3. Do you have a pending change request regarding exclusive access?
Plus: how is the public interest served when the launch phases laid out in the application are never executed? It renders the string "closed" by definition. Do we allow "endless dormancy"?
of course they changed their applications. Those who didn't got bogged down for years
Many of those mentioned by Kathy were never closed.
So that 180+ number is not meaningful.
Next round this might be 5,000 closed gTLDs; especially if the overall application cost (fees & consultancy) would be 10% of 2012 ....
Sorry that I am late. Probløems with the net where I am
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Alexander. Nothing was clearer than what we implemented in 2014 for the 2012 Round.
I think Kathy is just pointing out that if Closed Generics are permitted, there will likely be high interest in making such applications. In other words, policy matters when we anticipate high numbers.
Kathy: could you clarify?
im pretty sure the RrSG was opposed in comments but they don't participate on these calls.
I agree with Paul: we shouldn't completely deny exclusive access generic gTLDs; but they should definitely serve the public interest. And that will likely be subject to individuals judgement calls.
..... individual judgement calls.
@Alexander, I agree
Kathy makes a good point in that several organizations could apply for the same Closed Generic. What about WHO applies for .CORONAVIRUS?
But we weren’t looking at 180 in the first round. We were looking at a fraction of those that were intended to be closed. The rest were intended to be
How about, “A closed generic could be considered for approval by the ICANN board if there is a compelling reason presented in the application that indicates it would NOT be in the public interest to have the gTLD open. “ ?
I'm losing the thread here. Is the proposal that closed generics can only be brought into the marketplace by registries that do great good and have never been criticized? Seems an impossible standard.
How about JDRF applies for .insulin?
Just by the way, if we go back to the PC comment analysis , I think there were objections to allowing closed generics.
"Exlusive acces" can be a fine line .... it could be something right between "single user" (Red Cross & '.disaster') and a "group of users" (chosen by the registry): almost similar to a restricted community gTLD.
186 first round - Early Warnings from GAC on exclusive access-- that was viewed by all at the time as a Severe Problem :-)
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
got in late; but this conversation sounds fascinating
The problem with closed generics was identified by GAC - and seen as severe enough by the board to stop contracting.....asked us to
create new policy.
but @Kathy it has been pointed out that the GAC did not actually check what applicants had said about their intentions. They flagged ones they wanted to get clarification on
One at a time please
Mute their mics
@Martin, I think in context of closed generics, because the element of public interest is particularly pertinent, it could be argued that anticipating a problem and addressing that is a prudent step.
@Justine - perhaps, and I think that is why the conversation is needed, rather than closed off on broad swept speculation
A simple solution could be to advise applicants this way:
+1 Kristine - we need to approach this orderly. We need a deadline to submit proposals, and then the WG can walk through them and see what elements from which might work.
"If you restrict access to your gTLD there will be an expectation that you might be forced to revert to an open registry - UNLESS you can prove that the restrictions are serving the Public Interest."
@Alex - could a restriction be applied to avoid conversion to open generic?
And that proof would likely be subject to a judgement call - by whom?
Martin: could you provide an example?
"A closed generic could be considered for approval by the ICANN board if there is a compelling reason presented in the application that indicates it would NOT be in the public interest to have the gTLD open ?"
The press, the world, entrepreneurs and small businesses dug deeper -- .BEAUTY, .BOOK, .MOBILE, .SEARCH, .CLOUD, .BLOG -- among others were opened -- or withdrawn.
I’ve checked more carefully and Kathy and I were both wrong on the numbers. Out of 188 applications identified by the GAC, 47 indicated that their applications were for exclusive use. So roughly 140 applications were already “open.”
could we imagine the scale of issues with Generic TLD .generic (for pharmacy)
@Jeff - those people have yet to speak up
The 47 represents approx. 40 unique strings.
Just wanted to mention that I suggested some conditions subsequent should qualified closed generics be allowed.
I wouldn't say "it wasn't a shock." If it was known I bet you would have seen the opposition earlier. So I think some people were caught off guard. Including the GAC.
@Jeff - how long does the silence (or apparent non-existence) of the anti-closed-generics-under-any-circumstances need to go on before we can declare that the WG is allowed to make proposals and really talk about this?
Donna Austin, Neustar
To follow on to Kristine's point, it would also be good if folks could articulate the harm in closed generics because I'm really sure I have a good understanding on that either.
Greg: 47 is a significant number. Back in 2012 the 'per application overall cost' was around 400k to 500k. This time it will be just a fraction. The number could easily tenfold if we allow to close entire category defining keyword based gTLD applications. Industry leaders will be fearful that if THEY don't grab "their" keyword then their competition might do.
@Jim. so you
I’m not making a judgment about significance, Alexander. Just getting the facts straight.
never mind @Jim
IRT would not have jurisdiction over a topic that this PDP doesn't have jurisdiction over. If we want to have effect on 2012 strings in any way, we need a Charter amendment.
Good example Jeff - I think you tried to cover this in the emails to encourage the group to discuss rather than feel there is a default position.
Jeff: The main issue in regard to closed generics seems to me that the board specifically asked the gNSO to "create new policy advice". There is no "fallback".
Glad it did for this call
Thanks for the response Jeff - but I still disagree with the approach. lack of action has consequences - we should know what that is as a way to motivate parties to work towards a solution.
Alexander, I’m skeptical whether most industry leaders will care much if at all about “generic” terms in their space. I think the first round has demonstrated to many brands that there is little value to owning a TLD without a solid business and strategic plan.
@Alan, I think that makes sense. But we should be aware that we should be consistent in which solution we choose.
@STaff, could you send around the pros and cons chart as a link? Will be handy to have as we fashion proposals.
This topic is indeed unique to that extent re *our* fallbacl rule
Newman Rule -- That's the rule under which we have been operating...
Sorry Neuman Rule -- I think it's been renamed :-)
What about putting into the AGB: "In the 2012 round the board denied to contract closed generic registries on the basis of GAC advice (no public benefit). There is an expectation that in absence of compelling proof of Public Interest any closed generic might be denied contracting again."
Thanks @Alexander worthy of further discussion
The problem I currently see with falling back to "the way it was" is I'm not so sure we know what that means. In some cases its AGB. In others its implementation. How (and who) is making that determination?
Please add to Alan's proposal the questions raised in this call.
My last proposal would be kind of the "fallback solution" - because that was what happened in 2012; and new applicants should be aware of that.
We may nee d other use cases - e.g. for .CORONAVIRUS to be run as a Closed Generic by the World Health Organization. Yes or no to that?
@Jim: good point
Agree with Alan: we cannot send 1000s of applications to the Board.
@Alan - not sure I understand why it has to be “worldwide” could you explain please?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
Question: is there consistency world wide on how “non-profit” is defined nation by nation?
+1 Alan -- after all these years... examples?
Donna Austin, Neustar
So maybe someone from a for-profit organisation can come up with some reasons and should have an opportunity to do so.
@Alan, fortunately, we aren't the full repository of the creativity of the human race. Let's not cut off discussion
Donna Austin, Neustar
We're not Paul? How disappointing.
zfor the record, I wasn't finished yet.
you sure Paul?
Time check to allow for people to switch zoom rooms
Alan is right: The judgement call on "what is in the public interest" is a problem - who would decide? The board? A committee? The public via review mechanism?
I agree Alan . we need to create a closed generic application category , but it will only be allowed
More work to do on this one thanks for all ypur cooperation today
Next meeting: Tuesday, 25 February at 03:00 UTC
CLO - mass migration to another zoom room...
Bye for now
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
This discussion is really worthwhile
Thanks @Paul well said , really worthwhile discuss
bye, good discussion.
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)