Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
avri doria
26:50
and neither do i.
Steve Chan
26:54
As a reminder, there will be a webinar today at 18:00 UTC.
Steve Chan
27:03
About ICANN67.
Julie Hedlund
27:07
Yes this meeting is for 60 minutes due to a conflcit
Alexander Schubert
27:19
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.
Kathy Kleiman
28:53
186 of them
Kathy Kleiman
29:54
all of them were made publice
Kathy Kleiman
29:56
public
Kathy Kleiman
30:55
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?
Kathy Kleiman
31:38
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?
Alexander Schubert
31:40
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"?
Susan Payne
34:04
of course they changed their applications. Those who didn't got bogged down for years
Greg Shatan
34:25
Many of those mentioned by Kathy were never closed.
Susan Payne
34:33
quite
Greg Shatan
34:46
So that 180+ number is not meaningful.
Kathy Kleiman
35:03
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/cat2-safeguards
Maxim Alzoba
35:07
hello all
Alexander Schubert
35:28
Next round this might be 5,000 closed gTLDs; especially if the overall application cost (fees & consultancy) would be 10% of 2012 ....
Annebeth Lange
36:13
Sorry that I am late. Probløems with the net where I am
Kathy Kleiman
37:37
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with Alexander. Nothing was clearer than what we implemented in 2014 for the 2012 Round.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:47
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.
Alexander Schubert
39:02
Kathy: could you clarify?
Jim Prendergast
40:24
im pretty sure the RrSG was opposed in comments but they don't participate on these calls.
Alexander Schubert
40:58
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.
Alexander Schubert
41:23
..... individual judgement calls.
Annebeth Lange
41:40
@Alexander, I agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:25
Kathy makes a good point in that several organizations could apply for the same Closed Generic. What about WHO applies for .CORONAVIRUS?
Greg Shatan
45:48
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
Greg Shatan
45:54
open.
Elaine Pruis
45:56
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. “ ?
Paul McGrady
46:00
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.
Paul McGrady
46:52
How about JDRF applies for .insulin?
Justine Chew
47:19
Just by the way, if we go back to the PC comment analysis , I think there were objections to allowing closed generics.
Alexander Schubert
47:52
"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.
Kathy Kleiman
48:47
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)
49:18
got in late; but this conversation sounds fascinating
martinsutton
49:48
10!
martinsutton
49:53
My goodness
Alexander Schubert
49:55
The problem with closed generics was identified by GAC - and seen as severe enough by the board to stop contracting.....asked us to
Alexander Schubert
50:04
create new policy.
Susan Payne
50:13
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
Paul McGrady
50:20
One at a time please
Elaine Pruis
50:26
Mute their mics
martinsutton
50:28
Order!
Justine Chew
51:31
@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.
martinsutton
53:17
@Justine - perhaps, and I think that is why the conversation is needed, rather than closed off on broad swept speculation
Alexander Schubert
53:20
A simple solution could be to advise applicants this way:
Paul McGrady
53:48
+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.
Alexander Schubert
55:25
"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."
martinsutton
56:04
@Alex - could a restriction be applied to avoid conversion to open generic?
Alexander Schubert
56:14
And that proof would likely be subject to a judgement call - by whom?
Alexander Schubert
56:52
Martin: could you provide an example?
Elaine Pruis
57:03
"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 ?"
Kathy Kleiman
57:36
The press, the world, entrepreneurs and small businesses dug deeper -- .BEAUTY, .BOOK, .MOBILE, .SEARCH, .CLOUD, .BLOG -- among others were opened -- or withdrawn.
Greg Shatan
57:57
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.”
Maxim Alzoba
58:08
could we imagine the scale of issues with Generic TLD .generic (for pharmacy)
Paul McGrady
58:22
@Jeff - those people have yet to speak up
Greg Shatan
58:24
The 47 represents approx. 40 unique strings.
Kathy Kleiman
58:29
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
58:33
(not mine)
Justine Chew
59:47
Just wanted to mention that I suggested some conditions subsequent should qualified closed generics be allowed.
Jim Prendergast
01:00:13
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.
Paul McGrady
01:01:37
@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
01:01:41
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.
Alexander Schubert
01:02:33
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.
Justine Chew
01:02:48
@Jim. so you
Justine Chew
01:02:52
you
Greg Shatan
01:03:02
I’m not making a judgment about significance, Alexander. Just getting the facts straight.
Alexander Schubert
01:03:17
Greg: OK.
Justine Chew
01:04:23
never mind @Jim
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:05:43
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.
martinsutton
01:05:55
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.
Alexander Schubert
01:06:10
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".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:24
Glad it did for this call
Jim Prendergast
01:07:14
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.
Greg Shatan
01:07:17
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:36
Thanks Alan
Annebeth Lange
01:09:54
@Alan, I think that makes sense. But we should be aware that we should be consistent in which solution we choose.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:10:21
+1 Annebeth
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:21
indeed @Annabrth
Paul McGrady
01:12:06
@STaff, could you send around the pros and cons chart as a link? Will be handy to have as we fashion proposals.
Emily Barabas
01:12:41
p 124
Paul McGrady
01:12:58
Thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:05
Thx @Emily
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:57
This topic is indeed unique to that extent re *our* fallbacl rule
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:56
Newman Rule -- That's the rule under which we have been operating...
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:18
Sorry Neuman Rule -- I think it's been renamed :-)
Alexander Schubert
01:15:29
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."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:36
Thanks @Alexander worthy of further discussion
Jim Prendergast
01:16:42
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?
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:54
Please add to Alan's proposal the questions raised in this call.
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:02
about RedCross/.disaster.
Alexander Schubert
01:17:18
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:55
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?
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:00
@Jim: good point
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:56
Agree with Alan: we cannot send 1000s of applications to the Board.
martinsutton
01:19:42
@Alan - not sure I understand why it has to be “worldwide” could you explain please?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:19:43
Question: is there consistency world wide on how “non-profit” is defined nation by nation?
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:03
+1 Alan -- after all these years... examples?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:38
So maybe someone from a for-profit organisation can come up with some reasons and should have an opportunity to do so.
Paul McGrady
01:21:13
@Alan, fortunately, we aren't the full repository of the creativity of the human race. Let's not cut off discussion
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:35
We're not Paul? How disappointing.
Alan Greenberg
01:21:38
zfor the record, I wasn't finished yet.
martinsutton
01:21:46
you sure Paul?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:03
Time check to allow for people to switch zoom rooms
Alexander Schubert
01:22:22
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?
Phil Buckingham
01:22:23
I agree Alan . we need to create a closed generic application category , but it will only be allowed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:25
More work to do on this one thanks for all ypur cooperation today
Michelle DeSmyter
01:22:25
Next meeting: Tuesday, 25 February at 03:00 UTC
Jim Prendergast
01:22:26
CLO - mass migration to another zoom room...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:31
Bye for now
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:22:40
This discussion is really worthwhile
Poncelet Ileleji
01:22:56
Thanks @Paul well said , really worthwhile discuss
avri doria
01:22:57
bye, good discussion.
Alexander Schubert
01:23:04
Bye
Poncelet Ileleji
01:23:07
Bye All
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:23:07
bye