Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest
2. Review of summary document – See:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR4AI/edit?usp=sharing
3. Closed Generics (page 14)
4. String Similarity (page 20) (time permitting)
5. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript 

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance

Apologies: Flip Petillion, Katrin Ohlmer, Susan Payne, Heath Dixon, Maxim Alzoba

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM re: Closed Generics – Establish a small team to continue the discussion on a dedicated email list.

Notes:

1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest:

-- Tom Dale was appointed to the NomCom for the GNSO. 

-- Justine Chew was appointed to the NomCom for the ALAC representing Asia / Australia / Pacific Islands

See: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-08-19-en.

2. Review of summary document – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR4AI/edit?usp=sharing

Closed Generics (page 14):

-- The purpose of this document is not to restate what is in the public comment summary that is linked in the third bullet as the subgroup be public comment analysis.

-- Many people will advocate on one side or the other and in between.

-- Summary document is to make sure all positions are represented in a summary fashion, but not to restate what is in the public comment analysis.

 Background:

-- The GAC identified a non-exhaustive list of strings in the current round of the New gTLD Program that it considers to be generic terms where the applicant is proposing to provide exclusive registry access.

-- Board to an action but only for that round and left it to this PDP to set policy.

-- The Board said that what happened in 2012 on Closed Generics shouldn’t set a precedent for future rounds.

-- Exclusive registry access is synonymous with closed generics.

-- There was a public comment period and a large number of comments were received with a wide diversity of views.

In a resolution passed on 21 June 2015 the Board determined that remaining applicants from the 2012 round who had applied for non-contested strings and were seeking to operate Closed Generic TLDs would have the following options:

• submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD, and sign the current form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement;
• maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD. As a result, their application will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs; or
• withdraw their application for a refund consistent with the refund schedule in the Applicant Guidebook.

In effect, through this resolution, the ICANN Board banned Exclusive Generic / Closed Generic TLDs in the 2012 round. 

Question: How many applicants selected the second option, to maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD. As a result, their application will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs?

Based on staff research, the 5 applications referenced in the text above are:

• HOTELS - Booking.com B.V.
• GROCERY - Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• DVR -     Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation
• DATA - Dish DBS Corporation
• PHONE - Dish DBS Corporation

All five submitted change requests to question 18 (i.e., mission/purpose of the proposed gTLD) and have since been delegated. Therefore, the answer to the question above appears to be zero.

-- But the Board went on to say that it wanted the GNSO to consider this topic in a PDP on subsequent new TLD procedures.  The Board was specific in saying that it was not setting policy, but a temporary solution until the GNSO community could consider this issue in more detail.  So, the GNSO Council has charged this PDP WG with considering the impact of closed generics and future policy.

-- The working group generally agrees that some form of policy guidance should be drafted on this topic if it's possible to reach consensus on the path forward.

-- But there continue to be different strongly held views on the policy goals.

-- So, there is no high-level agreement on this point.

-- So, this discussion is critical to see if we can get to a high-level agreement.

Discussion:

-- Default was what was done for the first round.

-- Do we take the view that anything not banned in the AGB is allowed?  Or what is not expressly allowed in the AGB is not allowed?

-- There were a lot of comments opposing Closed Generics.

-- But many of those comment were from competitors to those applicants seeking Closed Generics because they didn’t want their competitors to have exclusive use.

Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence

Option 1: Formalize GNSO policy, making it consistent with the existing base Registry Agreement that Closed Generics should not be allowed.

Option 2: Allow Closed Generics but require that applicants demonstrate that the Closed Generic serves a public interest goal in the application. Potential objections process could be similar to community-based objections.

Option 3: Allow Closed Generics but require the applicant to commit to a code of conduct that addresses the concerns expressed by those not in favor of Closed Generics

Discussion:

-- Not appropriate to isolate certain responses that were provided in the public comments in the summary document.  Not presenting the background just as facts.

-- PTO.GOV site speaks to what is a generic.

-- Thick back to what people were afraid of back then when they advocated for closed generics and how we can work around it. 

-- The question is for those who oppose Closed Generics are there any conditions where you could see allowing them?

-- Need to create a separate email list to consider Closed Generics.