Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

2.7.3.c.1: Line 18 -- ACTION ITEM: Noting that the ALAC (and IPC) are interested in input from the SSAC review what the SSAC might have already written on Closed Generics (or rather dotless domains) re: Security and Stability of the DNS.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.

2.  Discussion of Public comments on 2.7.3 Closed Generics

General Comments:

Line 4, MARQUES - supports, but with PIC that it will not be used in an anti-competitive manner.

Line 5, Mike Rodenbaugh - Notes way in which Closed Generics were handled in 2012. Contrary to GNSO policy recommendations and AGB.

Line 6, ICANN Board -- Concerns

Line 7, RrSg -- Divergence (Most did not support Closed Generics) Agreement (some support allowing Closed Generics but if can prove benefits and with restrictions)

Lines 8&9, Christopher Wilkinson -- Divergence (opposes Closed Generics):

In short, from my point of view, the closed TLD is OK if the applicant already holds a global right to the name.

Otherwise the total privatisation of generic words is not acceptable. Generic TLDs have to be open.

Line 10, Vanda Scartezini -- Divergence (opposes Closed Generics)

2.7.3.c.1:

Dial outs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Lines 12-14, BRG, RySG, Google -- Agreement

Line 15, IPC -- Agreement (qualified - if in the public interest)

Line 16, GAC -- Agreement (qualified - if in the public interest)

Line 17, Neustar -- Agreement New Idea: Neustar also notes, more generally, that any new policy providing a mechanism for Closed Generics should be available to existing Registry Operators as well as future applicants.

Line 18, ALAC -- Divergence: The ALAC believes that ICANN should prohibit the use of closed generics if it is not coupled with a Public Interest Application, because closed-generic TLDs allow an applicant to have a potentially unfair influence over registration priority in a generic term, such as “app.”...Closed generics can exist – but they may introduce unintended security and stability issues which the SSAC should weigh in on. Thus, to completely eliminate this competitive and security threat, ICANN must prohibit their use.

-- ACTION ITEM: Noting that the ALAC (and IPC) are interested in input from the SSAC review what the SSAC might have already written on Closed Generics (or rather dotless domains) re: Security and Stability of the DNS.

From the chat:

Steve Chan: Before we reach out to the SSAC, we might want to review existing SSAC Advice, see what they've already written about Closed Generics...which from the commments we've reviewed here, it seems to focus on dotless domains?

Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): @Steve - the ALAC is somehow tying this to a slippery slope leading to dotless domains.  I dont see the connection personally, but we can ask the SSAC whether they have any concerns about Closed Generics

Kristine Dorrain: @Jeff, agree, but if we do ask the SSAC, we will want to be clear that we're not inviting a new three-year study....

Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): @Kristine - Absolutely

Steve Chan: I just want to make sure we cannot answer the question ourselves with existing reports / Advice...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3 PDP Co-Chair): if they have made a statement they will refer us back to that so YES checking is important first @Steve

Katrin Ohlmer: @Steve: Why don't we take this to the plenary?

Anne Aikman-Scalese: The "elephant in the room" is how one measures "the Public Interest" in relation to a proposed Closed Generic.  GAC Advice is that they should only be permitted if they operate "in the Public Interest" and that is the basis for the Board comment and a number of other comments.  The trouble is that no one knows what the Public Interest might be in operating a Closed Generic.  It would be good to dream up an example or two of a Closed Generic that serves the public interest.  Would it be .books operated as a free  worldwide lending library?

Kristine Dorrain: @Anne, that might be a good follow up question before we get to the plenary discussion....

Jim Prendergast: And something to ask the GAC - I realize that may take some time but they will ultimatley be the ones who determine if what we do satiates their GAC advice to the Board on this issue.

2.7.3.d.1:

LIne 20, XYZ -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 21, BRG -- Divergence (opposed to option)

Line 22, INTA -- Divergence (opposes option-adverse affects of brands, consumer protection, and choice)

Line 23, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes option)

Line 24, RySG -- Divergence (opposes option)

Line 25, IPC -- Divergence (opposes option)

Line 26, Public Interest Community -- Agreement (supports option)

2.7.3.d.2:

Line 28, ALAC -- Agreement (supports option but provisionally)

Line 29, IPC -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 30, INTA -- Agreement (supports option with qualifications) New Idea

Line 31, RySG -- Divergence (opposes option) New Idea

Line 32, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes option)

Line 33, BRG -- Divergence (opposes option)

2.7.3.d.3:

Line 35, Neustar -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 36, Mark Monitor -- Agreement (supports option).

Line 37, IPC -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 38, ALAC -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 39, Participants of the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy (APIGA) -- Agreement (supports option) New Idea

Line 40, RySG -- Agreement (cautiously supports option) New Idea

Line 41, INTA -- Concerns (overly burdensome): INTA believes this proposed process could be overly burdensome on a registry operator, and to single out Closed Generic operators with a different Code of Conduct that other operators could be problematic and unworkable.

2.7.3.d.4:

Line 43, IPC -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 44, Business Constituency -- Agreement (supports option)

Line 45, INTA -- Agreement (supports option, with qualifications)

Line 46, USPS -- Agreement (support for Closed Generics if includes public interest objection)

Line 47, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes additional objection process)

Line 48, RySG -- Divergence (opposes option)

Line 49, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes option)

2.7.3.e.1:

Line 51, RySG -- Agreement (Supports closed generics with code of conduct)

Line 52, Business Constituency -- Agreement (supports Option 4) Divergence (opposes Option 1)

Line 53, INTA -- Agreement (supports allowing closed generics with public interest option; allow closed generics with no requirements); Divergence: (Opposes a policy of no closed generics; opposes closed generic with code of conduct)

Line 54, IPC -- New Idea: However, it is impossible to fully evaluate these alleged harms without first seeing their effect. By allowing Closed Generics in the public interest, a positive outlook can be observed and then it may be assessed whether or not there are drawbacks.

Line 55, Public Interest Community -- Divergence (opposes closed generics)

2.7.3.e.2:

Lines 57 & 58 -- Neustar & RySG -- Agreement

Line 59, IPC -- Agreement (but assessed on a case-by-case basis) New Idea.

Line 60, Public Interest Community -- Divergence (oppose Closed Generics)

2.7.3.e.3:

Line 62, INTA -- Agreement (with separate code of conduct)

Line 63, Neustar -- Agreement (with separate code of conduct)

Line 64, RySG -- Agreement (with separate code of conduct)

Line 65, IPC -- Agreement (with speparate code of conduct)

Line 66, Public Interest Community -- Divergence (opposes Closed Generics)

3. AOB: Next meeting: Start with Section 2.7.4 String SimilarityNotes/ Action Items