10:15:52 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Hello, my name is Yeşim Sağlam and I will be monitoring this chat room. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair of this session. When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.
10:16:02 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
If you wish to speak during this session, raise your hand in Zoom or queue at the aisle microphone as directed.
On-site Participants may pick up a receiver and use their own headphones to listen to interpretation. Virtual Participants may access the interpretation via the Zoom Toolbar.
You may access all available features for this session in the Zoom Toolbar.
Please note that chat sessions are being archived and are governed by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
10:17:09 From Shreedeep Rayamajhi to Everyone:
thank u yesim
10:40:44 From Alfredo Calderon - VSIG to Everyone:
Good morning all. A heads up on next NARALO call on July 11th on Multistakeholderism and ICANN
10:40:45 From Alfredo Calderon - VSIG to Everyone:
https://online.fliphtml5.com/gnel/jddp/
10:42:52 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
thank you @Alfredo
10:46:33 From Eduardo Díaz - NARALO Chair to Everyone:
.edu is an example of a restricted top-level domain that has been around for many years
10:46:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
Indeed @Ed
10:47:53 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
I know we non-ALAC folks aren't invited to speak, but I do think it is important to point out that Jonathan's definition is significantly different from the definition found in the base registry agreement. Both of the examples he gave would not fall within the definition found in the agreement: "Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively 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). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others."
10:48:15 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
re restricted and role of registrars, that's not entirely correct Jonathan. The Rr would still be involved and the source of the name but they must work within the limitations of the restrictions set by the Ry. And in some cases this might involve technical tokens or similar which might be issued by the registry to the registrant tna d they have to take this to the Rr to get the name allocated.
10:49:05 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
One of the issues is that these various types of domains DO overlap to some extent.
10:49:41 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
yup
10:50:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
Noted @Susan Thx
10:52:09 From Fiifi Mensah Selby to Everyone:
Greetings everyone I am Selby Abraham From Ghana . Nice to be here. Please connect with me via https://www.linkedin.com/in/fiifimensahselby/
10:53:27 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Whether a string is "generic" depends on context. "Apple" could be a .brand or a generic.
10:54:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
*Closed* is the critical term here of course not just 'Generic' => but **Closed Generic**
10:54:48 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
It is important that At Large members appreciate that not all dictionary terms are generic terms. A consideration of the context is essential. Apple as a term is generic in the context of the fruit; it is not generic in the context of music or computers
10:56:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
but all generic terms are dictionary found
10:57:55 From Bill Jouris to Everyone:
@Greg, and things get more confusing when a word is both a generic (e.g. a fruit) or a geographic feature (e.g. a river) and also a product/brand name. Apple and Amazon are just the most prominent examples at the moment, but hardly the only cases
10:58:18 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
All those problems are a result of the erronous approach to put different namespaces (languages, regions, commercial areas, …) into a single flat (root-)zone. Consequently we should throw out any TLD, which are not a ccTLD or a UN recognised term for a area or a Commercial area (as used by the patent offices). Any other approach will fail.
11:00:08 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
+1 Good point Joanthan on the distinction between TradeMark and gTLDs
11:03:19 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Apart from Trade Marks being registered class by class, it is equally or more important for ALAC to note that trade marks are registered country by country, and rules and practices vary from one country and another country. Apple or Orange can be registered in one country and not another. Domain Registration process and the TLD application process could factor in Trade Mark rights, but the considerations of the DNS concerning names are larger.
11:05:28 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
If South Africa's Trade Mark process declined an application for Orange which is registered in major geographies, the newgTLD process or the Registry that is going by Trade Mark claim can't possibly allow a TLD or a Domain Name with a delegation certificate / domain certificate that says, "Valid in all countries, except South Africa".
11:05:47 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
RE: the hypothetical competitive harm, after 10 years has there been a single example of a would-be second level registrant that wanted to register in a closed generic registry but was not allowed?
11:05:50 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
DNS is all about raising the world way above the conventional gaps.
11:07:26 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Paul - I don't think so - not sure, but good question
11:08:21 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
For clarity, and perhaps to speed the ALAC's discussion, the GNSO and the GAC, with our invited guest member from ALAC, aren't discussion whether or not closed generics should be allowed (those were the corner cases that the Board asked that we set aside). The discussion is how to integrate the GAC advice that closed generics should serve a public interest goal. I hope the ALAC saves time in this meeting to discuss what a "public interest goal" framework/guardrails might look like.
11:09:13 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
It's on the Agenda @Paul so hopefully :-)
11:10:10 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
@CLO - good news! To a certain extent the divergent definitions won't matter all that much of the entire community can get on the same page about the public interest goal framework/guardrails.
11:10:54 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
It's 11:10 am CET, time to bring up the public interest.
11:13:37 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Agree with @Greg, I'd like to understand what we consider as "against public interest".
11:16:08 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
.bank is a delegated as a Community TLD with registration conditions.
11:18:23 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
@Justine, I would suggest that the opposite of "for the public interest" is not "against the public interest," but merely "not for the public interest."
11:19:01 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
I think we should just leave .brands out of the discussion.
11:19:16 From Eduardo Díaz - NARALO Chair to Everyone:
@Justine: You know that and me too but my sister does not. So it is confusing to her which site to visit and more important now with phishing and similar abuses.
11:20:23 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Greg, fine distinction, to me it's likely easier to establish what is against public interest or not for public interest as you say, than the opposite. :)
11:20:49 From Bill Jouris to Everyone:
@Eduardo, that is something we need to always keep in mind. WE are not actually typical end users. We know far more than they do about the Internet and how it works.
11:21:46 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Eduardo. Sure, the point is there are certain "strings" which have been highlighted as sensitive. GAC did this in 2013 (I think) as a measure to protect consumers. .bank is a classic example of this.
11:22:15 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
We are AtLarge, we do not have any interest in Commercial problems
11:22:54 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
@Justine, I think the goal is to have closed generics operated actively in the public interest.
11:23:46 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Greg, in principle, yes, but as I tried to allude to earlier, it's harder to say what's in the public interest compared to what is NOT in public interest.
11:24:00 From Amrita Choudhury to Everyone:
+1 Justine
11:30:10 From michael zhou to Everyone:
Closed Generics is good. What we should do is to limit using the generic term(like, city names, food category names,etc) by a certain company. we just need to define the reasonable rule for the closed generics TLD name.
11:31:08 From Sarah Kiden to Everyone:
Thanks Greg!
11:31:18 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Meetings+-+Wednesday%2C+15+June+2022#
11:32:09 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
@michael The name must not cause any conflict with any other similar name worldwide right now or anytime later. Than, and only than we might consider a further polution of the root zone
11:32:46 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
What Greg is describing is not a closed generic. If third parties can register in the registry, it isn't closed. I don't think this is what the GNSO/GAC discussion is meant to be about.
11:33:02 From michael zhou to Everyone:
@Lutz agree
11:36:11 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
Greg's proposal is certainly an interesting model, but any applicant under the last round or as proposed in the SubPro recommendations can ALREADY do all this. It is an oopen restricted model, of which many examples already do exist. It isn't a closed generic
11:36:52 From Susan Payne to Everyone:
This isn't what the discussion between the GAC and GNSO will be focussing on
11:39:32 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
@Susan, has the small team even settled on what WILL be discussed?
11:43:50 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
The process comes in opening up the closed generic
11:44:34 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
The Framing Paper suggests that the small group discuss the meaning of "closed", "generic" and "exclusive".
11:45:54 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
There could be some confusion here especially in the registration process
11:46:14 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
Hi Jonathan - so glad you are using chat after all! Here is the letter from the Small Team to the Council: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/gnso-council-small-team-closed-generics-11jun22-en.pdf As you can see, all but the NCSG on the small team are in agreement that the will of the Board should be followed and the edge cases of "no closed generics" and "all closed generics OK" should not dominate the conversation. The Board has asked that the GNSO and the GAC discuss how to integrate the GAC Advice that closed generics "serve a public interest goal." All of that said, this is going to be discussed by Council later today, since the Small Team doesn't govern, so there should be more clarity this afternoon. Stay tuned.
11:48:51 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Susan, @Jonathan, GNSO and GAC have not jointly agreed on anything officially yet. GNSO Council will be meeting in a few hours to determine some foundational elements before the conversation between GNSO-GAC begins.
11:49:06 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
Thank you @Paul, - the Board needs to listen to the community recommendations to the conversation. It will be a difficult to get consensus as it may require to open up the closed generics
11:50:01 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
@Zuck - it already includes ALAC. You asked for a member on the team and I supported that along with most/all of the GNSO. The ALAC is a valued partner in all if this.
11:50:40 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Paul, thanks for your support but we have to wait for Council to endorse that Small Team's recommendation. :)
11:51:08 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
@Justine - true, but I believe the ALAC participation bit is the least controversial.
11:51:20 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Me too @Paul!
11:54:14 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
"a public interest goal" is a much tighter concept than "global public interest" which is hard to define.
11:55:06 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Lutz, I'm not sure about that
11:56:36 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Only organisations can apply to TLDs
11:56:53 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
*for TLDs
11:57:14 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
Hm... it can be restricted to entities or organisations putting into consideration first one to hit the market
11:58:15 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Contract governs
11:58:28 From Christopher Wilkinson to Everyone:
@TDL ownership: but TLDs change hands for $$$
11:58:31 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
ICANN can not take any TLD back. Only those where ICANN has a contract for
11:59:16 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
@Christopher: That's not ownership payment, that's compensation for the ICANN expenses
12:00:24 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
@Greg, it seems very likely the ALAC will be included. If for some reason Council members oppose it, I intend to throw a McTantrum.
12:00:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
:-)
12:00:56 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Paul, I suggest you apply for mctantrum.com immediately.
12:00:56 From Marie Pattullo to Everyone:
Suddenly Council attendance becomes more attractive ;-)
12:01:25 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@Greg, please don't overreact prematurely :)
12:01:31 From Paul D. McGrady to Everyone:
@Greg & Marie - ha!
12:01:36 From Marie Pattullo to Everyone:
In all seriousness, I agree with Paul. ALAC being included should not be controversial (IMO).
12:01:59 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
I am cool as a cucumber.
12:02:05 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Relying on your support at Council, @Marie @Paul.
12:02:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr - Internet Australia to Everyone:
Thanks all
12:02:14 From Marie Pattullo to Everyone:
Absolutely, Justine.
12:02:22 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Yay!
12:02:22 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Thank you all!
12:02:23 From Emmanuel Dabbie Botchway to Everyone:
Thank you
12:02:23 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Thank you all this meeting is now adjourned.
12:02:24 From Emmanuel Oruk to Everyone:
thanks
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
