Hi Farzaneh,
Thanks for bringing this to the list. We were beginning to discuss it at
the PC (and it will certainly be on our PC call agenda on Monday), but like
I have mentioned to the PC, the letter states this
"*we also plan to ask that, for the next round, the Board maintain the
position that, unless and until there is a community developed consensus
policy in place, any applications seeking to impose exclusive registry
access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that
person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the
Registry Agreement) should not proceed."*
My only concern with the 'recommendation' that the council leadership is
planning on sending to the board is that it appears to make a
recommendation contrary to the subpro report. This concern comes strictly
from the point of view of my role as a GNSO policy manager (councillor).
If the SubPro report didn't recommend neither to allow nor ban closed
generics, hence leaving it at the discretion of the board, then I believe
the Council should be careful not to make contradictory statements that
might appear to the community as making an "executive recommendation" to
the board outside the PDP process.
I would like to know what you think.
Warmly,
Tomslin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, 21:26 farzaneh badii, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is interesting... they closed the dialogue on multistakeholder
> dialogue on closed generic.
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: John McElwaine via council <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 5:33 PM
> Subject: [council] Update on Closed Generics
> To: GNSO Council <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest developments on
> this project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst themselves that I
> also participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan
> Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter
> to the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the letter, and
> in response to questions that the dialogue participants had referred to
> them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs have collectively decided
> that it will be neither necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop
> a final framework nor initiate further policy development work on this
> topic.
>
>
>
> The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs’ joint letter and
> agreed to conclude their work as requested, including producing an outcomes
> report to ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
> Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs’ letter to all the
> commenters that submitted input on the draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG,
> BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish to
> engage with the group to join their next call to clarify any significant
> concerns they raised in the feedback they provided.
>
>
>
> The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is currently preparing a
> draft outcomes report for the group to review. The group intends for the
> outcomes report to serve as an introduction and summary of their work,
> including expressly clarifying that the draft framework the group published
> in June 2023 does not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product of
> compromise that was reached in the interests of soliciting community
> feedback on the various elements and points included in the draft
> framework. The outcomes report will also include all the community feedback
> that were submitted in full, links to the group’s community wiki space and
> other relevant documentation, and the participants’ feedback on the
> consensus building techniques and approaches that were used for the
> dialogue.
>
>
>
> The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in line with its
> previous plan to conclude the dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023.
> I understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
> separate communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they
> took and, as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:
>
>
>
> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the next
> round;
>
> (2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
> the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
> 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>
> (3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
> discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
> date in the facilitated dialogue.
>
>
>
> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the
> letter, the Chairs’ decision and the proposed next steps. You may also wish
> to check in with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder Groups
> appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>
>
>
> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we are very
> grateful to the dialogue participants and the staff support team for all
> the hard work and consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
> substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that the
> participants’ feedback on the methods and techniques used in the dialogue,
> as well as other lessons learned from the experience, will provide the GNSO
> Council and community with useful information that we can put into practice
> in future policy discussions.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Notice*
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
|
