Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Andrea Glandon
26:48
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Martin Sutton
27:06
audio fine
Annebeth Lange
27:09
Yes, we can
Susan Payne
27:09
you sound fine Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:09
OK
Julie Hedlund
28:44
2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Javier Rua-Jovet
30:55
+1 @Jeff
Javier Rua-Jovet
31:27
That is what leadership team discussed.
Paul McGrady
36:35
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.
Steve Chan
37:16
@Paul, do you need a link to the document again, to follow from your own computer?
Paul McGrady
37:36
Thanks Steve. Sounds good
Steve Chan
37:50
2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Alan Greenberg
39:30
Colors vary. Your pink is my purple and your green is my red...
Paul McGrady
40:16
On what page of the document for those of us who can't see the document on zoom?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:32
4
Steve Chan
40:33
Page 4
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:06
For 2. rather than Does .... , perhaps the better question is 'How does the proposed closed registry serve a public good?'
Justine Chew
42:26
+1 Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:34
Same for 3. How is the proposed mission .....
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:35
@ Donna - I think that would be better too on #2
Katrin Ohlmer
43:02
+1 Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:39
6. seems to be a 'policy issue' in its own right so I don't think it should be a factor here.
Alan Greenberg
43:55
Same for 6. Also a yes/no question. Need to elaborate.
Susan Payne
44:00
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
Justine Chew
44:00
For #3, might the proposed mission and purpose of the registry be different to the use of the TLD?
Donna Austin, Neustar
44:48
@Justine, can you elaborate a little?
Justine Chew
46:47
@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?
Donna Austin, Neustar
47:46
@Justine, agree.
Justine Chew
49:26
I like Alan's proposed approach for this block of text also.
Jim Prendergast
50:30
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.
Susan Payne
50:42
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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:34
Please Christopher do watch your choice of words there are no Games afoot here I can assure you!
Donna Austin, Neustar
52:47
@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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:23
a unique piece of our Charter indeed well noted @Jeff
Justine Chew
53:47
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
54:23
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
Jim Prendergast
54:40
@Donna - that's right. Why provide implementation advice if there is no consensus recommendation?
Greg Shatan
55:28
Let us not forget that the AGB placed no restrictions on closed generics.
Martin Sutton
55:33
I also think Anne’s list is very thoughtful and helpful to consider.
christopher wilkinson
56:24
#CLO I choose ‘gaming’ in preference to rather stronger considerations including hi-jacking or unfair competition.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:27
Noted @Martin
Alan Greenberg
56:30
@Greg, but our baseline is not the AGB, but the defacto rules at the end of the process.
Martin Sutton
56:38
+1 Greg, that has been a focus of lengthy discussions in the group
Donna Austin, Neustar
59:33
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.
christopher wilkinson
01:01:33
@Donna - I would have no problem with all TLDs being in the public interest.
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:47
Tx!
Jim Prendergast
01:02:08
@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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:00
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.
Paul McGrady
01:03:02
How about "One Working Group member suggested, a framand other members supported, using the following specific questions as a basis to develop a framework:"
Tom Dale
01:03:15
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.”
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:22
+1 Alan
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:03:53
There is nothing that restricts an applicant for applying for .disaster now, just that it can't be operated as a closed generic.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:29
@Tom, well said.
Jim Prendergast
01:04:48
could be operated as a verified TLD though? similar to bank or insurance or pharmacy?
Paul McGrady
01:04:58
Alan - we can't through out the ICANN Compliance department ...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:05:04
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.)
Justine Chew
01:08:29
which is neither here nor there
Paul McGrady
01:09:26
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:33
"operated as a verified TLD" similar to bank or insurance or pharmacy -- allowed under existing rules.
Susan Payne
01:10:00
@Paul - +1`not banned
Susan Payne
01:10:51
and the GAC said: not unless they serve a public interest, which also isn't a ban
Paul McGrady
01:11:08
Board = deferred. not banned
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:14
Agree with Susan and Paul
Paul McGrady
01:11:19
GAC = Yes, if public interest served
Alan Greenberg
01:12:12
It was a ban for that round.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:31
It was a ban for that round. +100 Alan
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:34
Not sure I agree Alan. Applicants just chose the easier path and opened their TLD.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:46
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
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:53
Worthwhile exercise.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:57
could you ask the question again, Jeff?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:32
No, not this late in the day.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:44
@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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:18
@Donna: different decisions, different times. Still very relevant.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:41
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"
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:35
Apologies all, I need to drop for another call.
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:35
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=public+good+def
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:49
Oxford too, great!
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:14
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:23
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:51
My father was an economist :-)
Susan Payne
01:22:03
shouldn't #2 be "serve the public interest". Not sure if that's different to "public good" but the GAC advice was public interest
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:03
Note which one is the first definition -- economics, Greg :-)
Paul McGrady
01:22:42
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:22
Wow.
Justine Chew
01:25:33
+1 Elaine, .... and "always publicly financed" so does that mean that only public authorities can apply/use them?
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:40
I thought Elaine made very good points.
Jim Prendergast
01:28:46
audio is low
Greg Shatan
01:30:02
Good point, Susan — the phrase “public good” has led us astray.
Justine Chew
01:30:22
+1 to "public interest" or change "serve a public good" to "benefit the public" or something along those lines.
Martin Sutton
01:30:42
+1 Susan
Annebeth Lange
01:31:20
+1 Susan
Greg Shatan
01:31:43
Caution: If we use the term Public Interest Goal, we will end up talking about PIGs.
Sophie Hey
01:32:12
Greg if they're lofty and aspirational maybe PIGs will fly....
Tom Dale
01:32:52
Gold.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:33:15
Tom?
Susan Payne
01:33:43
like that Paul
Paul McGrady
01:34:23
+1 Jeff- let's just say that buyers are stuck with them
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:26
couldn't possibly follow Paul's edits, rearrangements and new frameworks on the fly
Paul McGrady
01:35:16
@Kathy - calling them banned doesn't make them so.
Susan Payne
01:36:12
no Kathy, the applicants just lost the will and either gave up or opened up rather than be stuck on hold for years
Paul McGrady
01:36:48
+1 Susan. Kathy's characterizations are, respectfully, revisioninst.
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:51
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
Susan Payne
01:39:15
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"
Greg Shatan
01:39:46
I like Kevin Murphy, but he is not the Oracle of ICANN.
Paul McGrady
01:40:20
@Kathy - the headlines from DomainIncite do not override the clear language of the actual Board resolution.
Sophie Hey
01:40:36
+1 Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:47
Thanks for noting that @Greg, this is an article / opinion piece not an ICANN resolution
Paul McGrady
01:41:40
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.
Susan Payne
01:42:03
+1 Paul
Susan Payne
01:42:28
Yes Anne - and thank you for doing so
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:49
were trying @Anne and your text is assisting that effort greatly in my humble opinion.
Paul McGrady
01:43:19
@Anne - I just think those 3 questions are the heart of it, but have no problem at all walking through all of your questions.
Paul McGrady
01:43:32
All your questions are thoughful.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:22
noted @Paul ...Thanks
Alan Greenberg
01:44:45
The effect (or support of) competition is perhaps THE question!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:45
Thank you Cheryl. i was just affirming Leadership's approach to the topic. I do not want to fail the Board.
Paul McGrady
01:47:18
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:48:12
@Paul - are you saying it is a factor that should be evaluated, but will not solicit useful information from an applicant
Paul McGrady
01:49:42
@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.
Justine Chew
01:53:22
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?
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:38
Greg's concept of "category killer" captures an important issue. I think it should be added as #8.
Greg Shatan
01:58:33
Paul, Exuberance is your middle name.
Olga Cavalli
01:59:31
Colleagues I must attend another online meeting, regards to all
Paul McGrady
01:59:31
@Greg - ha!
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:07
+1 Alan.
Jim Prendergast
02:00:52
I'm intrigued my "category killer" concept - could Greg tee it up again for clarity?
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:24
Gee whiz, one of my members signed up the term of our entire industry.
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:01:30
+1 Paul
Alan Greenberg
02:01:41
If it is an innovative idea that will benefit the applicant, then it is NOT in the PI.
Kathy Kleiman
02:02:42
Agreed!
Martin Sutton
02:03:54
@Alan - I think innovation for the benefit of users is another factor
Martin Sutton
02:04:41
which may still be in the public interest but not supportive of your competitors
Justine Chew
02:05:13
But we talked about anti-competitiveness
Paul McGrady
02:05:45
@Kathy - that is back to the old second level sales model. That is not innovation. That is 1996.
Annebeth Lange
02:07:54
Sorry, have to leave. Thanks for a good discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:17
thanks for being here @Annebeth
Paul McGrady
02:09:28
Can we please get back to Anne's questions?
Jim Prendergast
02:11:06
so strings like books, tires or food?
Paul McGrady
02:12:17
@Jim - isn't there a .food? It doesn't seem to have driven all food sites off the Internet.
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:12:27
What about .WHO (World Health Organization). Closed generic or no?
Justine Chew
02:12:55
Correct @Greg, goes to prohibition of something considered as anti-compettive.
Jim Prendergast
02:12:55
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?
Jim Prendergast
02:13:26
could be a .brand?
Paul McGrady
02:13:28
Correct
Susan Payne
02:13:33
yes agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:13:54
Catgory killer should be noted in Question 5
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:14:23
Better nomenclature for the intention described by "Category Killer"required
Greg Shatan
02:14:25
We can use Category Killer as the working title.
Kathy Kleiman
02:14:28
or put in as #8.
Greg Shatan
02:14:42
“Yesterday” was “Scrambled Eggs”....
avri doria
02:16:58
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.
Kathy Kleiman
02:22:32
2012 AGB?
Kathy Kleiman
02:22:35
2012 practice
Jim Prendergast
02:22:37
We don't know what the status quo is.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:22:39
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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:23:25
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."
Justine Chew
02:23:36
No agreement to go one way or the other
Julie Hedlund
02:24:56
Monday, 18 May at 20:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:25:06
Thanks everyone lots done today THANK You All ! we will circle back of course Bye for now
Katrin Ohlmer
02:25:17
Thank you!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:25:17
Thank you Jeff and Cheryl, staff et al