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. >