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

audio fine

Yes, we can

you sound fine Jeff

OK

2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

+1 @Jeff

That is what leadership team discussed.

I'm having trouble seeing the document. Zoom wouldn't let me log in normally (made me to web browser) so maybe that is the problem.

@Paul, do you need a link to the document again, to follow from your own computer?

Thanks Steve. Sounds good

2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

Colors vary. Your pink is my purple and your green is my red...

On what page of the document for those of us who can't see the document on zoom?

4

Page 4

For 2. rather than Does .... , perhaps the better question is 'How does the proposed closed registry serve a public good?'

+1 Donna

Same for 3. How is the proposed mission .....

@ Donna - I think that would be better too on #2

+1 Donna

6. seems to be a 'policy issue' in its own right so I don't think it should be a factor here.

Same for 6. Also a yes/no question. Need to elaborate.

I'm not so sure about 5. Shouldn't they each be assessed on their merits, and regardless of that assessment they go to auction

For #3, might the proposed mission and purpose of the registry be different to the use of the TLD?

@Justine, can you elaborate a little?

@Donna, as in, should it be "How is the proposed mission and purpose of the registry [or proposed use of the string] innovative in nature?

@Justine, agree.

I like Alan's proposed approach for this block of text also.

determining what questions need to be asked seems like implementation work to me, not policy. I think we need to uplevel this a bit to focus on the policy as opposed to the possible process.

I do think it's helpful to try to find a path forward, such as this. Closed generics were prohibited in the 2012 round as a direct result of the gac advice, and the GAC members, in their informal comments are firmly reiterating that their advice isn't for an outright ban but that there must be a public interest for the string to be allowed

Please Christopher do watch your choice of words there are no Games afoot here I can assure you!

@Jim, we are providing implementation guidance and this does seem to fit that category, but I guess to your point we need to decide if we accept a policy that would allow for closed generics in certain circumstances.

a unique piece of our Charter indeed well noted @Jeff

Further re: #3, understanding how the proposed use of the string is innovative is more important than for the proposed mission and purpose of the registry.

If there is no common ground "so be it" NP we get to tell the Board that via the GNSO Council no issue at all we did our job of exploring the options

@Donna - that's right. Why provide implementation advice if there is no consensus recommendation?

Let us not forget that the AGB placed no restrictions on closed generics.

I also think Anne’s list is very thoughtful and helpful to consider.

#CLO I choose ‘gaming’ in preference to rather stronger considerations including hi-jacking or unfair competition.

Noted @Martin

@Greg, but our baseline is not the AGB, but the defacto rules at the end of the process.

+1 Greg, that has been a focus of lengthy discussions in the group

We need to be careful that in doing this for closed generics there aren't unintended consequences for other TLDs given it is specifically bringing in elements of public interest/public good.

@Donna - I would have no problem with all TLDs being in the public interest.

Tx!

@Alan - I honestly don't know what our baseline is. Ive asked the question numerous times but its has never been addressed by leadership team as they feared it would prevent parties from working towards a consensus position. It would be good to know what it is.

Other factors: what about the other competing organizations, other similar groups, and those who use their services, including NGOs, countries who use disaster services, and communities that reach out to them.

How about "One Working Group member suggested, a framand other members supported, using the following specific questions as a basis to develop a framework:"

The public interest remains an elusive concept, with the approach of the Board and pretty much everyone else being “we know it when we see it.”

+1 Alan

There is nothing that restricts an applicant for applying for .disaster now, just that it can't be operated as a closed generic.

@Tom, well said.

could be operated as a verified TLD though? similar to bank or insurance or pharmacy?

Alan - we can't through out the ICANN Compliance department ...

I also support the idea that there could be letters of opposition, just as there are in the CPE process. As to a Public Interest Framework, I had been told that the draft Public Interest Framework essentially concludes that the Public Interest is achieved via the MSM Model. (I don't think that is always the case but that is the status for now, as far as I know.)

which is neither here nor there

No matter the rhetoric used today, the Board did not "ban" closed generics. They deferred them to the next round and asked us to provide guidance. The distinction is important and we should be careful not to inadvertently mischaracterize whet the Board actually did. https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a

"operated as a verified TLD" similar to bank or insurance or pharmacy -- allowed under existing rules.

@Paul - +1`not banned

and the GAC said: not unless they serve a public interest, which also isn't a ban

Board = deferred. not banned

Agree with Susan and Paul

GAC = Yes, if public interest served

It was a ban for that round.

It was a ban for that round. +100 Alan

Not sure I agree Alan. Applicants just chose the easier path and opened their TLD.

George Sadowsky: I was a member of that committee and I voted in favor of the decision to bar closed generic gTLDs. It was the right decision. - CircleID

Worthwhile exercise.

could you ask the question again, Jeff?

No, not this late in the day.

@Kathy, George also voted against moving forward with the new gTLD program, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of his position on closed generics.

@Donna: different decisions, different times. Still very relevant.

noun: public good; plural noun: public goods1.Economicsa commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization."a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"

Apologies all, I need to drop for another call.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=public+good+def

Oxford too, great!

What Is a Public Good?A public good is a product that an individual can consume without reducing its availability to others and of which no one is deprived. Examples of public goods include law enforcement, national defense, sewer systems, public parks, and the air we breathe. As those examples reveal, public goods are almost always publicly financed.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp

My father was an economist :-)

shouldn't #2 be "serve the public interest". Not sure if that's different to "public good" but the GAC advice was public interest

Note which one is the first definition -- economics, Greg :-)

Innovation is an important public interest and should not be discarded. If we have learned anything over the last few weeks is that the private sector plays an important role in the public good. It is possible to advise an applicant that merely stating "innovation" will be insufficient.

Wow.

+1 Elaine, .... and "always publicly financed" so does that mean that only public authorities can apply/use them?

I thought Elaine made very good points.

audio is low

Good point, Susan — the phrase “public good” has led us astray.

+1 to "public interest" or change "serve a public good" to "benefit the public" or something along those lines.

+1 Susan

+1 Susan

Caution: If we use the term Public Interest Goal, we will end up talking about PIGs.

Greg if they're lofty and aspirational maybe PIGs will fly....

Gold.

Tom?

like that Paul

+1 Jeff- let's just say that buyers are stuck with them

couldn't possibly follow Paul's edits, rearrangements and new frameworks on the fly

@Kathy - calling them banned doesn't make them so.

no Kathy, the applicants just lost the will and either gave up or opened up rather than be stuck on hold for years

+1 Susan. Kathy's characterizations are, respectfully, revisioninst.

ICANN has slapped a de facto ban on so-called “closed generic” gTLDs, at least for the remaining 2012 round applicants. http://domainincite.com/18804-icann-bans-closed-generic-gtlds-for-now

For those unclear on the GAC advice here it is: Beijing Communiqué: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal"

I like Kevin Murphy, but he is not the Oracle of ICANN.

@Kathy - the headlines from DomainIncite do not override the clear language of the actual Board resolution.

+1 Paul

Thanks for noting that @Greg, this is an article / opinion piece not an ICANN resolution

So the GAC is for them with a public interest. The Board is open minded and told us to figure this out. Everyone, except Kathy and Christopher speaking on this call are either for them or at least open minded. Let's keep pushing forward towards a solution.

+1 Paul

Yes Anne - and thank you for doing so

were trying @Anne and your text is assisting that effort greatly in my humble opinion.

@Anne - I just think those 3 questions are the heart of it, but have no problem at all walking through all of your questions.

All your questions are thoughful.

noted @Paul ...Thanks

The effect (or support of) competition is perhaps THE question!

Thank you Cheryl. i was just affirming Leadership's approach to the topic. I do not want to fail the Board.

I think a question on what the effects on competition will be rather than requiring an applicant to chase down all competitors for consents. If I applied for .lawfirm with a really innovative, public benefiting use case, it would be quite impossible for me to get consent from every lawyer in the world.

@Paul - are you saying it is a factor that should be evaluated, but will not solicit useful information from an applicant

@Jeff - it could be a factor, but we shouldn't require consent from an applicant's competitors. ICANN is, ultimately, a private sector player not a government.

I would suggest, for #3. How is the proposed use of the string innovate in nature? How does the proposed mission and purpose of the registry support such use?

Greg's concept of "category killer" captures an important issue. I think it should be added as #8.

Paul, Exuberance is your middle name.

Colleagues I must attend another online meeting, regards to all

@Greg - ha!

+1 Alan.

I'm intrigued my "category killer" concept - could Greg tee it up again for clarity?

Gee whiz, one of my members signed up the term of our entire industry.

+1 Paul

If it is an innovative idea that will benefit the applicant, then it is NOT in the PI.

Agreed!

@Alan - I think innovation for the benefit of users is another factor

which may still be in the public interest but not supportive of your competitors

But we talked about anti-competitiveness

@Kathy - that is back to the old second level sales model. That is not innovation. That is 1996.

Sorry, have to leave. Thanks for a good discussion.

thanks for being here @Annebeth

Can we please get back to Anne's questions?

so strings like books, tires or food?

@Jim - isn't there a .food? It doesn't seem to have driven all food sites off the Internet.

What about .WHO (World Health Organization). Closed generic or no?

Correct @Greg, goes to prohibition of something considered as anti-compettive.

We're clearly not going to finish this on this call so could we put category killer into the doc to revisit when we come back to this?

could be a .brand?

Correct

yes agree

Catgory killer should be noted in Question 5

Better nomenclature for the intention described by "Category Killer"required

We can use Category Killer as the working title.

or put in as #8.

“Yesterday” was “Scrambled Eggs”....

while the Board isn't the only one, at the end of the day, the Board is responsible for making a decision that it understands as being in the GPI.

2012 AGB?

2012 practice

We don't know what the status quo is.

I think you have characterised where we are *at this stage* of discussion @Jeff so now to write draft text up for next call on this topic

I think it's clear that there will be applicants for Closed Generics who want to "get in line' and have a "placeholder" for future policy development. This needs to be considered in relation to the "ban" on applications for strings that are "on hold."

No agreement to go one way or the other

Monday, 18 May at 20:00 UTC

Thanks everyone lots done today THANK You All ! we will circle back of course Bye for now

Thank you!

Thank you Jeff and Cheryl, staff et al