Zoom Chat:2021-10-18 At-Large Policy Session 1: Closed Generics

00:25:13 Claudia Ruiz: Welcome all to the At-Large Policy Session 1: Closed Generics
00:27:06 avri doria: you can have it
00:27:07 Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It explains why Avri was in triplicate ;-)
00:27:08 maureen hilyard: @Matthew shared by a lot of people :)
00:29:29 Jeff Neuman: Nice job JZ!
00:29:51 Sarah Kiden: Session starting great
00:30:03 Jonathan Zuck: Https://AtLarge.news/S2
00:33:22 Sivasubramanian M: url led me to a page that had a drop down of regions and after I amswered Asia it is a blank page
00:33:47 Jeff Neuman: That is what it is supposed to do :)
00:34:03 Shah Zahidur Rahman ICANN72 Fellow: same here...:-)
00:36:21 Sivasubramanian M: Thanks Jeff
00:39:13 Jeff Neuman: the words were that a closed generic "must serve a public interest goal." - if my memory serves
00:39:24 Gisella Gruber - ICANN Org: If you wish to hear this session in Spanish or French, please contact At-Large Staff <staff[at]atlarge.icann.org>
00:39:31 Gisella Gruber - ICANN Org: Or private message us!
00:40:53 Jeff Neuman: Except this time we will hopefully decide the rules PRIOR to applications being submitted....
00:41:08 Marc Trachtenberg: + 1 Jeff!
00:42:26 Jeff Neuman: I would amend the fourth bullet to "Push back to the community to develop a policy in connection with the Board's then-current position"
00:42:27 Kurt Pritz: Actually, the rules were decided before the last round. Closed generics were allowed. Was the Guidebook supposed to explicitly identify all allowed uses for a TLD?
00:42:40 Susan Payne iPhone: @Jonathan, why assume that only non-profits can operate in the public interest?
00:43:03 Karen Day: +1 @Susan
00:43:54 Frank Anati: Good day everyone Frank Anati from Ghana
00:44:01 Jeff Neuman: +1 Susan.....the GAC Advice was that the TLD must "serve a public interest goal." No decision has been made as to whether that must be a non-profit organization.
00:44:33 Jeff Neuman: I should have said that the GAC Advice did not specify that it had to be a non-profit organization.
00:44:36 Olévié Kouami: Greetings from Senegal
00:44:50 Marc Trachtenberg: @Jeff - some have suggested that non-profit be the proxy or one proxy for in the public interest
00:45:13 Jeff Neuman: @Marc - sure, that could be one approach.
00:45:27 Marc Trachtenberg: Anyone else having difficulty hearing Avri?
00:45:40 Olévié Kouami: It's good
00:47:44 maureen hilyard: @Marc no, but after I raised my own audio level
00:49:03 Judith Hellerstein: AtLarge.news/S2
00:50:04 Judith Hellerstein: Does it work with the html page
00:50:49 Jeff Neuman: FYI, the SubPro PDP operated under the principal that unless we could reach a consensus on a change to the policies or the implementation of those policies in the 2012 round, the default would be that which occurred in 2012. The problem, according to members of the working group, was that with respect to Closed Generics, the ICANN Board specifically stated that its decision to not allow closed generic applications to proceed was limited to only that round. So there was a legitimate question as to what really was the "default"
00:51:42 Hadia Elminiawi: We need statistics
00:52:08 Jeff Neuman: Hadia - we cant get statistics because closed generics were not allowed.
00:52:14 Gisella Gruber - ICANN Org: If you wish to hear this session in Spanish or French, please contact At-Large Staff <staff[at]atlarge.icann.org>
Or private message us!
00:52:18 Jonathan Zuck: @Hadia, this is meant to be more like the “humming” I the IETF, rather than “voting.”
00:52:30 Jeff Neuman: If some closed generics were allowed, we could have had some statistics and other data
00:53:05 Jeff Neuman: NOTE: That is not a criticism of what happened, just the reality that we cannot get any data.
00:53:48 Vanda Scartezini: sorry to enter a little late.
00:54:06 Roberto Gaetano: @Jeff the problem is that this would have created a precedent
00:54:13 Hadia Elminiawi: @Jonathan sure
00:54:30 Jeff Neuman: @Roberto - right.
00:54:34 Kurt Pritz: Actually the 2012 round was an excellent opportunity to gather data as there were a limited number of closed generic applications. We could have seen if closed generics are a fertile bed for innovation as we think they might be. Our zealous tendency for regulation and to save internet users obviated that rare opportunity.
00:56:22 Vanda Scartezini: agree Kurt, as I see here some of those closed done here were a focus of new innovations in the banking area for instance
00:56:29 Jeff Neuman: @Roberto - therein lies the delimma: If we allowed some to go through, we would have had some data. But if we allowed some to go through, we would have set a precedent to allow them in the future. It was a no-win decision that the ICANN Board had to make.
00:58:08 Hadia Elminiawi: because we do not have data yet, we should have a cautious exploring approach
00:58:41 Bill Jouris: This sounds just to much like the political assertions by staunch libertarians in the political sphere.
00:59:20 Vanda Scartezini: to be close does not means is not in public interest
00:59:34 Bill Jouris: "yo much" => "so much"
00:59:49 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: this argument is basically about vertical integration. the essential difference between open vs closed generics is whether the registry operator needs to allow all registrars to support it or if the registry operator can choose their registrars or be vertically integrated and be the sole registrar.
01:00:46 J-P Voilleque - ICANN 72 Fellow: Ms. Burr's cat - "sunbeam located"
01:01:27 Raymond Mamattah: +1 Tom Barrett
01:01:41 Jeff Neuman: @Becky - As the competition authorities state, you can only determine whether a practice is anti-competitive is on a case by case basis and only based on the evidence of what actually occurs
01:01:55 Gregory Shatan: @Tom, what support does a registry operator with one registrant need from multiple registrars? Or even a single registrar?
01:02:16 Sivasubramanian M: <question> (hypothetical) If .security decides to be careful about who registers a domain name, and what names are allowed, would .security be considered a closed generic? ie. .Security does not really confine its do
01:02:28 Jeff Neuman: Competition authorities generally do not decide issues prospectively, right?
01:02:42 Alan Greenberg: The statement about there being no evidence of harm implies that such harm is a concern. So if we do allow closed generics, what do we do if there is harm that appears?
01:02:58 Kurt Pritz: I think they are not anti-competitive because there are an unlimited amount of domains. If someone registers .book and it does not serve the public use, no one will use it. They will move on use something else. Example: book.com was a “monopoly” but it did not serve the public well so people moved on to amazon.com. Who knew that could happen?
01:03:11 Raymond Mamattah: @Gregory, I think the multiple Registrars gives advantage over the single one
01:03:13 Jeff Neuman: @Alan - the same thing ICANN says it would do in other areas - refer to a competition authority
01:03:16 Sivasubramanian M: ... does not really confine its TLD to a certain business group or association or class of entities, but has more generalized criteria which makes the TLD somewhat selective in allowing registrations..
01:04:09 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: @greg you're referring to a dotbrand tld. are you saying a closed generic will follow the same rules as a dotbrand tld?
01:04:09 Jeff Neuman: Either ICANN is a regulator or competition or it is not. It can't be both.
01:04:12 Sivasubramanian M: ... <end of question>
01:04:17 Gregory Shatan: @Raymond, I don't understand what you mean.
01:04:19 Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, not all harms are going to be addressed by competive authorities. All the more so given their current focus on other "issues" in the Internet world.
01:04:25 Jeff Neuman: "regulator of competition"
01:05:10 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: @Alan G. - we’ve certainly heard concerns. We do not, of course, have any experience that would allow us to determine whether those concerns are actual threats.
01:05:13 Jeff Neuman: @Alan - What harms do we think Closed Generics would cause if not "anti-competition" harm.
01:05:57 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: well done marc!
01:06:10 Phillip Marano: "Sorry, carlspollclient.azurewebsites.net has been blocked due to security policy."
01:06:12 Alan Greenberg: @Becky, that's why I advocate taking a path forward that is not readily reversible.
01:06:19 Gregory Shatan: Tom, how do you think a Closed Generic differs from what I described?
01:06:25 Phillip Marano: +1 Marc, well done
01:06:36 Jeff Neuman: But again, this is a REAL tough issue and I believe there is merit in both sides of the debate.
01:06:56 Sivasubramanian M: That is true Jeff
01:07:06 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: @greg I didn't think a closed generic was a single registrant tld. Am I wrong?
01:07:25 Sivasubramanian M: But wouldn't a closed generic attract the provisions of Restrictive Trade practices?
01:07:49 Jeff Neuman: Which is why I liked being one of the neutral co-chairs of SubPro. I didn't get to decide one way or the other.
01:08:01 Roberto Gaetano: @Jeff I wonder if it is the community who has to agree about ICANN being a regulator or not - the Board can only do its best within the status quo, that is indeed a bit foggy - also about your previous point, a lose-lose situation, you are right - the question is how to get out from this situation - and the Board alone cannot do it, there must be a deep discussion in the community
01:09:18 Jonathan Zuck: Https://AtLarge.news/s2
01:09:27 Vanda Scartezini: Siva. not for all in my views- the experiences we had here was quite good . they will never sell second level domaisn
01:09:29 Marc Trachtenberg: That was not the only discussion of closed TLDs prior to the first round
01:09:30 Jeff Neuman: @Roberto - the community has had deep discussions about this. Hours and hours of discussions. But we are a multi-stakeholder community with different interests and biases.
01:10:23 Gregory Shatan: @Tom, a Closed Generic has a single registrant at the second level (or all registrants under common control). If there were multiple registrants, it wouldn't be closed. It might be (very) restricted but not closed.
01:10:25 Jeff Neuman: @Marc is correct. In fact, single operator TLDs were included in CRA International's economic report in 2008.
01:10:35 Jeff Neuman: It actually talked about this closed model specifically.
01:10:57 Gregory Shatan: @Jonathan, why didn't you tell the story like a Ghost Story?
01:10:58 Marc Trachtenberg: Closed generics were contemplated by people before the AGB. If the decision was to prohibit them then this would have been specified in the AGB
01:10:58 Sivasubramanian M: Thank you Vanda. I think the discussion in this room is somewhat in reference to some specific closed strings, and I do not know what these closed generics are, so my comments are general.
01:11:00 Jeff Neuman: Of course it was discussed in relation to price caps and vertical integration.
01:11:20 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - just because government says something it doesn't mean that it is right
01:11:30 Vanda Scartezini: closed shall be linked to IP names as mostly of the good ones has done..
01:11:36 Jonathan Zuck: https://circleid.com/posts/20130224_5_reasons_why_closed_generic_new_gtlds_should_be_opposed
01:11:47 Roberto Gaetano: @Jeff that’s the reality - for good or bad - I still believe in the model, so I would be inclined to go further in this direction
01:11:57 Jeff Neuman: For those that were surprised to see single operator TLDs, see https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf
01:12:20 Jeff Neuman: This is over 2.5 years prior to the 2012 round opening up.
01:12:33 Kurt Pritz: There’s a blast from the past
01:12:35 Susan Payne iPhone: Kathy's argument against closed generics is basically that some people had no vision as to the possibility of operating a TLD in a different way to .com and .org
01:12:44 Jeff Neuman: So, it cannot be said that the community was "surprised" to see applications by brands
01:12:50 Marc Trachtenberg: They also can't use beauty.com for their business. BUt they survived
01:14:07 Marc Trachtenberg: Except maybe booking.com?
01:14:10 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Important to note that the Board’s action was explicitly for 2012 round and was predicated on community policy development to address the issue
01:14:37 Bill Jouris: @Marc, sure, the survived. But then, nobody else got to use it either
01:14:52 Jeff Neuman: So although @Kathy says that it was a surprise, for those following the new gTLD Program, vertical integration issues, and issues relating to price caps and competition prior to 2012, we were not surprised at all.
01:15:07 Marc Trachtenberg: Except when they have secondary meaning like booking.com
01:15:16 Marc Trachtenberg: See also • TMEP 1215.02(d) Marks Comprised Solely of gTLDs for Domain-Name Registry Operator and Registrar Services: the applicant may, in some circumstances, avoid or overcome the refusal by providing evidence that the mark will be perceived as a source identifier.
01:15:37 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: It’s not accurate that you can’t trademark generics is it, e.g., apple?
01:15:51 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: It’s just a weak mark
01:15:55 Marc Trachtenberg: @Becky - correct
01:16:15 Sivasubramanian M: @Jonathan Michele's CircleID article explains the issue well.
01:16:20 Karen Day: @Kathy - if anyone is entitled to be in any TLD then how is preditory pricing allowed?
01:16:23 Susan Payne iPhone: so toys.com was "monopolised" by a Toy retailer. diy.com is "monopolised" by UK company B&Q retailing DIY goods.
01:16:30 Marc Trachtenberg: @Becky - is APPLE a weak mark? It is regularly ranked as one of the most valuable trademarks in the world
01:16:41 Jeff Neuman: @Becky - that's correct. You can register otherwise generic terms if you are using that term in a way that is different than the ordinary dictionary definition
01:16:43 J-P Voilleque - ICANN 72 Fellow: APPLE for apples is not trademarkable. APPLE for computers is novel/distinctive.
01:16:46 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Right @Mark,
01:16:58 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Thank you J-P
01:17:21 Susan Payne iPhone: I'd love to know what the point of this session is. we are not hearing anything that hasn't been said over the many hours of the SubPro work (and probably before that too)
01:17:22 Gregory Shatan: @Becky, you can't trademark "apple" for apples. For computers it is an arbitrary mark. It's only generic for apples.
01:17:26 Jeff Neuman: The Food Network has been allowed to run .food. Have there been any issues?
01:17:27 Marc Trachtenberg: But booking.com is generic for booking services. But has so much secondary meaning that it is protectable
01:17:34 Bill Jouris: +1 Kathy
01:17:44 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: good job Kathy!
01:18:44 Jeff Neuman: United, Delta, etc.
01:18:44 Hadia Elminiawi: @Kathy - convincing argument
01:18:49 Bill Jouris: So Jonathan, are you going to let us know how the polling went?
01:18:57 maureen hilyard: The extra explanation of closed generics was very helpful Kathy, thank you.
01:19:31 Jonathan Zuck: @Bill, you are seeing it live. It’s to a poll but a temperature. Right now, “Prohibit all” is doing well, as ou can see from the meter!
01:19:42 Jonathan Zuck: It’s NOT a poll, I meant to write
01:19:56 Bill Jouris: @Jonathan, I must have missed where the thermometer was displaying
01:20:07 Jonathan Zuck: Up top, in my video feed
01:20:22 Alan Greenberg: Where Jonathan's photo would normally be.
01:20:32 Marc Trachtenberg: Goods and services for the trademark registration for Booking.com: "Making hotel reservations for others; holiday accommodation reservation services and resort reservation services, namely, providing hotel room reservation services and resort hotel reservation services and providing online hotel and resort hotel room reservation services; providing information about hotels, holiday accommodations and resorts accommodations, whether or not based on the valuation of customers; providing information, advice and consultancy relating making hotel reservations and temporary accommodation reservations; providing online information, advice and consultancy relating making hotel reservations and temporary accommodation reservations
01:20:38 Bill Jouris: Ah, that wasn't one of the thumbnails that I was seeing. Needed to move over to spot it
01:21:16 Vanda Scartezini: normally associated with a design it is possible to be an intellectual property - a Mark itself
01:21:32 Gregory Shatan: Where is the link to the poll?
01:21:42 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: given the approval of the booking.com trademark, can we expect the USPTO to start approving TLD only trademarks?
01:21:54 Tom Barrett - EnCirca: @marc?
01:21:54 Jonathan Zuck: @Greg it’s https://AtLarge.news/s2
01:22:12 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - how do you know exactly what Amazon's intentions were?
01:22:17 Jeff Neuman: @Tom - I think that would be a stretch because you still have to show secondary meaning which I would think is still a high bar.
01:22:35 Bill Jouris: @Marc, we know what Amazon's intentions were because we are not idiots
01:22:47 Sarah Kiden: :-) Bill
01:22:52 Marc Trachtenberg: @Tom - Yes. See • TMEP 1215.02(d) Marks Comprised Solely of gTLDs for Domain-Name Registry Operator and Registrar Services: the applicant may, in some circumstances, avoid or overcome the refusal by providing evidence that the mark will be perceived as a source identifier.
01:22:53 Alan Greenberg: @Mark, knowing the intentions is what this discussion is all about.
01:23:16 Hadia Elminiawi: @Bill maybe we are!
01:23:18 Sivasubramanian M: @Kathy your arguments are dangerously close to a position such as "If general motors applies for .search it is ok..." What if Google takes over General Motors?
01:23:18 Marc Trachtenberg: @Alan - no one can know what is in the registry applicant's mind
01:23:24 Jeff Neuman: @Marc - I would be surprised if the USPTO approved too many applications like that.
01:23:45 Marc Trachtenberg: @Jeff - we will see. They already changed the TMEP just for this reason
01:23:55 Olévié Kouami: IDN
01:23:59 Gregory Shatan: I don't believe that Part 18 is binding or limiting in terms of operation.
01:24:37 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - what is a large enough presence in INdia for Loreal to make it OK or not OK?
01:25:00 Jeff Neuman: But in China for example, many English dictionary words are used as brands there because in China those terms do not have a generic-type meaning
01:25:46 Gregory Shatan: There is no law against calling a milk business MILK. The issue only arises when you try to claim trademark rights.
01:26:09 Phillip Marano: This is just a bad analogy, gTLDs and brands are simply not the same thing. Owing a gTLD doesn't prevent competitors from using the same term elsewhere, at the second level in particular.
01:26:44 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - you are telling the Board that they are wrong about what the Board decided
01:26:58 Bill Jouris: @Phillip, in which case, why do we need any more TLDs?
01:27:05 Brian King: +1 Phil
01:27:19 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - The Board is telling you that they did not decide this issue. That's why we are still discussing it
01:27:41 Karen Day: @Kathy there are a lot of innovators who want closed generics. It's not all "lawyers" and "consultants" as you make it out to be.
01:27:54 Kurt Pritz: I think Kathy’s last statement was unfair. There are a lot of lawyers here but those for closed generics are genuinely for competition and innovation and should not be unfairly painted with an uncompetitive brush.
01:28:04 Brian King: As Phil notes, what you "get" with a TM is not what you "get" when you own a TLD.
01:28:21 Bill Jouris: Way to go changing the topic when you have no answer Marc!
01:28:26 Brian King: It's not a good analogy.
01:28:37 Gregory Shatan: @Kurt, thank you for noting that.
01:29:10 Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, the public interest should be viewed from the perspective of an end user and not a potential registrant. And I believe that there could be uses of new gTLDs that are better in serving a public interest goal than having yet another completely open unrestricted TLD.
01:29:19 Marc Trachtenberg: Those aren't decisions. They are opinions
01:29:33 Jeff Neuman: Public Interest does not mean the Registrant Public.
01:29:40 Jeff Neuman: It means the end users.
01:29:43 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: I actually have a question for Kathy - we’ve allowed gTLD operators to lock up generic terms for specific industry groups - e.g., .bank - great for financial services providers, but not great, e.g., for blood banks. Why is it ok to take a word out of circulation for a non-exhaustive group, but not ok to let a brand take a word out of circulation for innovation?
01:29:44 Jonathan Zuck: True, Jeff
01:30:09 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre: Icann is not a trademark registry. domain names are not a trademaks.
01:30:25 Susan Payne iPhone: Good question Becky - why indeed?
01:30:41 Roberto Gaetano: @Kurt I have a few doubts on that - I might be naive but to me “closed” and “competition” do not match
01:30:46 Jeff Neuman: @JZ - the irony is that when we look at this issue, most people talk about registrants have or do not have access to. But that is the wrong inquiry?
01:30:50 Elaine Pruis: Why does a generic word need to be used? Any word could be used for innovative purposes… Flickr, Facebook, WeChat
01:30:57 Bill Jouris: So maybe we make a policy that closed generics can only be owned by someone who is not in that industry
01:31:18 Bill Jouris: If Marc is correct (and sincere) je should love that
01:31:44 Olusegun Akano: Are brand names universal? doesn't allowing a brand in USA to own a closed gtld means it has to be closed to anyone else in another country?
01:31:51 Jeff Neuman: @Elaine - why not :)
01:32:56 Marc Trachtenberg: @Becky - great question
01:33:03 Jeff Neuman: @Becky - that is a great point. Those that argue with your point are looking at this from the "registrant" perspective instead of the end user perspective.
01:33:44 Marc Trachtenberg: But who decides where that line is?
01:34:21 Marc Trachtenberg: @Kathy - there was no policy specifically for .bank. The line for restricting access is a slippery one
01:34:28 J-P Voilleque - ICANN 72 Fellow: .bank permits banks to register .bank domains. Chase owning .bank restricts the number of banks allowed to register .bank domains to one. This is not a challenging line.
01:34:36 Roberto Gaetano: this thing about “registrant” vs “user” is indeed one of the very questions
01:34:37 Jeff Neuman: In the future, in this debate, we need to put aside the registrant interest in getting a particular domain name, but look at this issue from the end user perspective.
01:34:42 Frank Anati: @Kathy I support you argument
01:35:06 Jeff Neuman: @JZ - that wouldn't work because it equates registrant interest with end user interest
01:35:46 Marc Trachtenberg: @Zuck - but non-profit is a tax status. It doesn't equate necessarily to in the public interest
01:36:19 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Red Cross running .relief as a closed generic seems just as troubling to me as L’Oreal running .beauty - maybe more
01:36:36 Marc Trachtenberg: @Zuck - a trade association doesn't advance the public interet. It advances the success of that trade group being represented
01:36:40 Jeff Neuman: @ Becky - why?
01:36:48 Sivasubramanian M: @Becky Yes. That is equally restrictive
01:37:03 Roberto Gaetano: @Jeff this is an inherent problem of the GNSO, where the registrants and users are lumped together - although the post-review GNSO structure would allow for building new groups
01:37:20 Jeff Neuman: If you look at from the end user perspective, why is the Red Cross getting .disaster or .relief worrisome.
01:37:33 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: @Jeff, not saying that it’s unacceptable - but I simply don’t understand why one would be ok and the other wouldn’t.
01:37:41 J-P Voilleque - ICANN 72 Fellow: Marc, when an organization applies for that tax status, what are the requirements for success? Does the organization have to, for example, identify to the IRS how they are serving the interests of either the public or a specific constituency?
01:37:48 Jeff Neuman: We are not looking at the best possible use, but a use that serves a public interest goal
01:37:51 Sarah Kiden: Because there are many relief organisations, not just Red Cross
01:38:01 Marc Trachtenberg: It depends on the jurisdiction assigning the tax status
01:38:06 Jeff Neuman: Thanks @Becky for clarifying.
01:39:12 J-P Voilleque - ICANN 72 Fellow: Well, let's take as an example the U.S. tax code. Can you show me a nonprofit under any of the 501 categories that do not have to make a declaration that they are serving the interests of either the public or a specific public?
01:39:13 Jeff Neuman: If we analyze this issue from a registrant perspective, a closed TLD will never be ok. If we look at it from the end user perspective, I see a potential for some incredibly beneficial public interest benefits.
01:39:42 Phillip Marano: The registrant-perspective incorrectly presupposes that domain name registration is a human right, or that domain registration is necessary to engage online. Neither one of those are true. Registration is a service, provided through terms and conditions in a contract with a registrar.
01:39:50 Jeff Neuman: @Jonathan - are we going to open up the floor?
01:40:38 Jonathan Zuck: Yes, @Jeff
01:41:24 Jeff Neuman: Cool, I would love to speak
01:41:57 Sarah Deutsch: So when competition or speech issues arise in the future, what remedy would be available to address those?
01:42:23 maureen hilyard: This has been a most enlightening discussion.
01:42:34 Kathy Kleiman: I don't think a public interest test had to apply to everything. Far too time-consuming! Would delay applications which Jeff always objected to.
01:44:40 Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - I don't remember objecting to anything in particular.
01:44:51 Jeff Neuman: Delaying our report, potentially.
01:44:55 Jeff Neuman: but not delaying applications.
01:44:56 Brian King: +1 Marc, an interesting thread to pull on is why ICANN requires only some TLDs to operate in the public interest.
01:45:20 Marc Trachtenberg: I thought I made that point 4 times!
01:45:44 Roberto Gaetano: @Kathy - the point is whether we believe that ICANN has to support the public interest or not - it ICANN does, then the test, how costly it is, must be done - if ICANN does not, then it is an unnecessary burden on the way to optimise the DNS marketplace
01:46:36 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Just to reiterate’s agri’s earlier point, the board decision re closed generic in the last round was NOT a policy decision and did not reflect a board view on the right outcome - rather it was to give the community an opportunity to develop additional / change the policy laid out by the applicant guide book
01:46:42 Marc Trachtenberg: @Zuck - we are making t the Board's role. Because we couldn't decide
01:47:00 Susan Payne iPhone: +1 Marc
01:47:04 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Avri’s point.
01:47:10 Alan Greenberg: Not Board role to DEFINE policy. So since the PDP could not, the Board should (again) defer allowing closed generics UNTIL there is a community consensus.
01:47:26 Vanda Scartezini: interesting meeting !!! great approaches thank you all for this
01:48:04 Vanda Scartezini: great talk kathy
01:48:10 Kathy Kleiman: Tx Vanda.
01:48:18 Gregory Shatan: Nice ponytail, @Jeff
01:48:21 Dave Kissoondoyal: +1 Vanda
01:48:31 Kathy Kleiman: Jeff, I was there for about 3 years :-). At your invitation, too.
01:49:14 Gregory Shatan: The issue resurfaced at the very end of SubPro...
01:49:28 Vanda Scartezini: sure kathy...
01:49:40 Marc Trachtenberg: @Jeff - so now its OK for the Board to decide that closed generics can only be in the public interest and then kick it to the GNSO to decide??
01:49:49 Marc Trachtenberg: That's not policy?
01:50:47 Gregory Shatan: Generic words are generally nouns. Could we allow closed TLDs for adjectives, such .stubborn or .fuzzy? If not, why not?
01:51:14 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Good question @Greg
01:51:33 Roberto Gaetano: Jeff made good points, methinks - but I still have to think it over a bit more
01:51:35 Jeff Neuman: @Marc - I did not make my point well obviously. I meant to say that if the Board made a decision to allow / not allow / or only allow under certain conditions, it could then send it back to the GNSO to develop policy consistent with that approach.
01:51:43 Kathy Kleiman: All, Jeff and Cheryl were excellent co-chairs of SubPro. May nothing I say take away from that!
01:51:44 Vanda Scartezini: i do not see board to have a good interpretation what is really a public interest in the whole world
01:51:52 Jeff Neuman: In other words, to fill in the gaps.
01:51:55 Marc Trachtenberg: @Vanda +1
01:52:30 Marc Trachtenberg: There is no basis to continue the temporary suspension
01:52:53 Jeff Neuman: Sorry, I accidentally raised my hand, but I don't want to be in the queue....sorry.
01:53:07 Kurt Pritz: @Alan, One could just as easily say that the temporary suspension of closed generics should not be reinstated until there is consensus policy.
01:53:14 Alan Greenberg: To be clear, I was not giving my personal opinion, but the formal ALAC position (although I happen to agree with it).
01:53:58 Jeff Neuman: Fascinating discussion....
01:53:58 Hadia Elminiawi: This was an excellent discussion
01:54:11 Matthew Shears: excellent session - thanks
01:54:12 Marc Trachtenberg: I hope the board makes the right decision but it least should make a decision
01:54:12 Dave Kissoondoyal: Very interesting session. Thanks and bye to all
01:54:13 Susan Payne iPhone: Jonathan we have had a 5 year PDP already!
01:54:16 Vanda Scartezini: marc, I have here some examples of close TLDs with a lot of good things for these clients best interest ( millions of clients) so it is enough for the region to see what those are for the good of public or not...
01:54:25 maureen hilyard: Great to have presented the formal ALAC position thank you Alan.
01:54:34 Sivasubramanian M: very lively, a great example of a multistakeholder discussion with multiple points of view
01:54:34 Roberto Gaetano: the bad point about this discussion is that we cannot follow up in the bar…
01:54:52 Marc Trachtenberg: +1000 to Roberto!
01:54:52 Jeff Neuman: North America based attendance is not a surprise given the hour of the day.
01:54:57 Sivasubramanian M: That is right Roberto
01:55:01 Vanda Scartezini: appreciate the meeting one the most interesting meetings
01:55:01 Hadia Elminiawi: very interesting
01:55:04 Kathy Kleiman: Tx you Jonathan!
01:55:06 Kathy Kleiman: And everyone!
01:55:07 Eduardo Diaz _NARALO Chair: You can watch the meeting in the NARAL group page at facebook.com/groups/naralo. Share with your social networks. Very good and healthy discussion here!
01:55:08 Becky Burr - ICANN Board: Thanks all!
01:55:09 Lianna Galstyan: Thanks everyone
01:55:09 Vanda Scartezini: thanks jonathan
01:55:10 avri doria - ICANN Board: Note: I never gave a view in the polling.
01:55:10 Evin Erdogdu - ICANN org: Thank you all
01:55:11 Gregory Shatan: @Roberto, we can still drink...
01:55:12 Hadia Elminiawi: we should do more of this
01:55:12 Sarah Kiden: Thank you
01:55:14 Gisella Gruber - ICANN Org: Thank you all for your participation! Keep well and safe.
01:55:15 Bill Jouris: If nothing else, it takes some pressure off to be able to thumbs up or down