RE: [council] The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes)

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeff,

>>  .  In that paper it seems like staff dismisses the idea of not allowing 
>> closed generics or changing anything.  That said, something must have 
>> happened at the board level to put that in doubt.

It appears that the committee felt that it should seek advice from the ICANN 
community in general, as well as the GNSO specifically.

Although the minutes of the meeting on 1/2 Feb  are not yet available, some of 
the comments from the minutes of the 10 Jan will give you a clue to some of the 
sentiments: 

"Mike Silber noted that the global public interest also guides ICANN, and that 
has to be factored in. Many of the Board members will be uncomfortable 
approving TLDs that are seen as a land grab, as opposed to expansion of the DNS.

George Sadowsky agreed with the clarification of the two issues as presented by 
Karen, but noted that there should be consideration of whether registrants are 
allowed to look at qualifications for registering in TLDs. The global public 
interest has to be considered, and there has to be consideration of who decides 
how this is considered when faced with an application for an exemption. Some of 
the applicants have clearly already considered that they wish to seek an 
exemption, and some of these may go directly against the spirit of the creation 
of the exemption. We have to address this issue now.

Erika Mann commented that she approaches this issue differently. It's important 
to clarify the definition of the public interest. This is a separate endeavor 
from understanding generic strings, which can be considered breaking apart 
those that are within a regulated sector and those which are not. It's 
important to look for viable solutions, such as consideration of a misuse of 
dominance provision. The Committee would benefit from additional discussion on 
this topic at the workshop.

Olga Madruga-Forti thanked Karen for her paper and summary. Olga noted that 
there seems to be some consensus in the Committee that this is a problem that 
has to be dealt with, and noted that there may be some concerns of competition 
policy that should be incorporated into the consideration of the global public 
interest.

Gonzalo Navarro noted that this issue is not going to be resolved now and that 
the conversation deserves more time.

Heather Dryden contributed that some GAC members have identified concerns 
related to these issue. Further conversation is welcomed.

The Chair summarized that that Committee needs more time and clarity on this 
issue. A serious discussion is to follow in Los Angeles."

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin