Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: February 6, 2013 2:17:41 PM PST > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications > > > "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications > > Comment/Reply Periods (*) > Important Information Links > Comment Open: > 5 February 2013 > Comment Close: > 7 March 2013 > Close Time (UTC): > 23:59 > Public Comment Announcement > Reply Open: > > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > Reply Close: > > View Comments Submitted > Close Time (UTC): > > Report of Public Comments > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > ICANN > Categories/Tags: > Top-Level Domains > Purpose (Brief): > To receive stakeholder views and suggestions on the topic of > "closed generic" gTLD applications. > Current Status: > Existing provisions of the New gTLD Program do not provide specific > guidance on this issue. Potential new provisions may be considered > based on the comment provided and analysis undertaken. > Next Steps: > ICANN staff will review comments submitted and will provide a > summary and analysis of these comments to the New gTLD Program > Committee of the Board of Directors. The Committee will review this > feedback as well as the additional research and analysis directed > to inform its consideration on this issue. > Staff Contact: > Karen Lentz > Email: > [log in to unmask] > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose > ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" > gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be > adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder > views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In > particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed > objective criteria for: > > classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., > how to determine whether a string is generic, and > determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator > should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. > The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has > discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of > focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action > to be taken. At its 2 February 2013 meeting, the Committee passed > the following resolution: > > Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has received correspondence > from the community addressing "closed generic" TLDs and understands > that members of the community term a "closed generic" TLD as a TLD > string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a > participant exclusively for its own benefit. > > Whereas, ICANN implemented the Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO) policy recommendations on the "Introduction of > New Generic Top-Level Domains", and within those policy > recommendations there is no specific policy regarding "closed > generic" top-level domains (TLDs). > > Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding > applications for "closed generic" TLDs. > > Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is > important to understand all views and potential ramifications > relating to 'closed generic' TLDs. > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > the President and CEO to open a 30-day public comment forum on this > topic, which should include a call for identification of proposed > objective criteria to classify applied-for TLDs as "closed generic" > TLDs. > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > the President and CEO to, concurrently with the opening of the > public comment forum, request the GNSO to provide guidance on the > issue of "closed generic" TLDs if the GNSO wishes to provide such > guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the > close of the public comment forum. > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > the President and CEO to: > > Summarize and analyze all comments submitted in the public comment > forum. > Review materials supporting the policy development process > resulting in the GNSO policy recommendations on the Introduction of > New Generic Top-Level Domains and provide analysis of any > discussions relating to the limitations on potential new gTLDs. > Analyze the feasibility of objectively classifying applied for TLDs > as "closed generic" TLDs. > Provide an analysis as to whether the public interest and > principles of international law are served by adopting a clear > approach regarding 'closed generic' gTLDs. > Provide a report to the New gTLD Program Committee informed by the > comments received and analysis conducted, including alternatives to > addressing this issue. > Section II: Background > Following the publication of the gTLD applications in June 2012, > concerns have been brought to ICANN's attention regarding some > applications for strings which are labelled as "closed generic." > These applications are considered problematic by some due to the > proposed use of the TLD by the applicant, e.g., using the TLD in a > manner that is seen as inappropriately exclusive, particularly in > the sense of creating a competitive advantage. These applications > have been the subject of public comments and Early Warnings. > > Many of the communications link the issue of registration > restrictions for a TLD with the Code of Conduct (Specification 9 to > the gTLD Registry Agreement). However, it should be clarified that > the Code of Conduct refers to registry-registrar interactions, > rather than eligibility for registering names in the TLD. Rather > than the Code of Conduct, the true issue of concern being expressed > appears to be that in certain applications, the proposed > registration policies are deemed inappropriate by some parties. > > The New gTLD Program has been built based on policy advice > developed in the GNSO's policy development process. The policy > advice did not contain guidance on how ICANN should place > restrictions on applicants' proposed registration policies, and no > such restrictions were included in the Applicant Guidebook. > > Defining a "generic" category of strings is a complex undertaking > as strings may have many meanings and have implications for several > languages. However, there are mechanisms built into the program > (e.g., objection processes, GAC processes) as a means for concerns > about specific applications to be considered and resolved as they > arise. > > Recent correspondence has expressed concerns about the potential > impact on competition and consumer choice, as well as phrasing the > issue in terms of potential impact on the public interest. The New > gTLD Program Committee considers it important to understand all > views and potential ramifications relating to "closed generic" TLDs. > > Section III: Document and Resource Links > List of gTLD applications received > Letter from Michele Neylon, et al. [PDF, 56 KB] > Letter from Kathryn Kleiman [PDF, 1.43 MB] > Toronto Public Forum: > GAC Early Warnings > Letter from Michele Neylon, et al. [PDF, 362 KB] > Letter from Microsoft Corporation [PDF, 267 KB] > Section IV: Additional Information > None > > (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not > guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, > reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period > lapses. > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > [log in to unmask] > http://gnso.icann.org > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]