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

[Bill Graham <likeanarrow@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also would refer to the "whereas" clauses of the resolution, specifically:

> 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.


That is a pretty accurate description of the motivation behind the resolution.

Best
Bill

On 2013-02-07, at 19:58, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>