Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Christian Wheeler

Saved on

compared with

New Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Christian Wheeler

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • ICANN46 GAC Beijing Communiqué (11 April 2013), GAC Advice to the ICANN Board:
    • “For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal.”
  • Response to Sub Pro PDP CC2 (22 May 2017):
    • “Based on principles of promoting competition and consumer protection, exclusive registry access should serve the public interest goal (per Beijing GAC Communiqué Cat. 2 Safeguards Advice)”
  • Comment on Sub Pro PDP Initial Report (8 October 2018): Re-affirms previous advice (Beijing Communiqué, Cat. 2 Safeguards):
    • “For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal”
  • ICANN67 Communique (16 March 2020), Issues of Importance to the GAC:
    • “The GAC should conduct further work to identify criteria, examples and use-cases that may serve for assessing the public interest in the context of closed generics.”
  • GAC Compilation of Individual Input (9 May 2020): Majority of GAC members contributing support previously articulated GAC Advice (GAC Beijing Advice):
    • “Exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal”. Individual GAC members noted that public interest should be defined.
  • ICANN68 GAC Communique (27 June 2020), Issues of Importance to the GAC:
    • “Some GAC members expressed the view that the lack of a formal PDP WG recommendation on the delegation of closed generics would imply that the relevant Board Resolution from the 2012 round would still apply.”
  • GAC Comment on Subpro PDP WG Draft Final Report (29 Sep 2020):
    • "The GAC is mindful that the issue of closed generics has generated considerable debate and diverse views. Broadly speaking, while the GAC does not believe closed generics are necessarily inherently anti-competitive, it considers that restricting common generic strings for the exclusive use of a single entity may have unintended consequences, includinga including a negative impact on competition, if appropriate guardrails are not established.
    • In this respect, the GAC continues to support the retention of the advice contained in the GAC Beijing Communique whereby “exclusive registry access should serve the public interest goal” and that adequate means and processes are defined to ensure that public interest goals are met. The burden of demonstrating the public interest benefit of a closed generic string should rest with the applicant and be subject to comments during the review process.
    • As no agreement has been found yet within the PDP WG, the GAC encourages further discussions to identify criteria as to how to assess “public interest” within closed generic TLDs. In this sense, the GAC, recognizing that the PDP WG has not been able to agree on how to treat closed generic TLD applications in future rounds, has taken note of the three proposals submitted by individual/small groups of PDP WG Members
    • Regarding these proposals, the GAC is not in a position to support “The Case for Delegating Closed Generics”, which would allow all closed generics being delegated, and finds common ground in the other two proposals. The GAC notes that the “Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs”, which includes a new category of new gTLDs -Public Interest Closed Generic Strings (PICGS) -is aimed to operate within a public interest framework directly in response to the GAC Beijing Advice, and notes that the suggestion of a public interest closed generic review panel and creation of public interest closed generic would require further community work, in order to minimize added complexity and avoid undue overlap with community status applications. The GAC encourages the continued consideration of this proposal together with the “Closed Generics Proposal”, both proposals having found explicit support in the GAC. Regarding the “Closed Generics Proposal” the GAC finds value in the notion of creating a Framework for Evaluating Closed Generic applications to determine whether those applications serve a legitimate public interest goal."
  • ICANN70 GAC Communiqué (25 March 2021), Issues of Importance to the GAC:
    • "Regarding Closed Generic TLDs, GAC Membersnoted Members noted support for the proposed suspension of Closed Generic TLD applications until policy recommendations and/or a framework on the delegation of closed generics which serve a public interest are developed by consensus, as per the At-Large minority statement. GAC Members drew the attention of the Board and the community to the GAC consensus comment on the SubPro PDP Draft Final Report, which elaborates and adds substance to the Beijing GAC Advice on Closed Generic TLDs."
  • GAC Comment on GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration (1 June 2021):
    • "The GAC is mindful that the issue of closed generics has generated considerable debate and diverse views. GAC Members support the proposed suspension of Closed Generic TLD applications until policy recommendations and/or a framework on the delegation of closed generics, which serve a public interest are developed by consensus, as per the ALAC minority statement and subsequent ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board.
    • As to substance, the GAC continues to support the retention of the advice contained in the GAC Beijing Communique whereby “exclusive registry access should serve the public interest goal” and that adequate means and processes are defined to ensure that public interest goals are met. The burden of demonstrating the public interest benefit of a closed generic string should rest with the applicant and be subject to comments during the review process.
    • As no agreement has been found within the PDP WG, the GAC encourages the Board to take the necessary steps for starting outcome-oriented community discussions to identify criteria as to how to assess “public interest” within closed generic TLDs.
    • In this sense, the GAC, recognizing that the PDP WG was not able to agree on how to treat closed generic TLD applications in future rounds, took note of the three proposals submitted by individual/small groups of PDP WG Members:
    • Regarding these proposals, the GAC has expressed that it is not in a position to support “The Case for Delegating Closed Generics”, which would allow all closed generics being delegated, and finds common ground in the other two proposals. The GAC further noted that the “Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs”, which includes a new category of new gTLDs -Public Interest Closed Generic Strings (PICGS) -is aimed to operate within a public interest framework directly in response to the GAC Beijing Advice, and also noted that the suggestion of a public interest closed generic review panel and creation of public interest closed generic would require further community work, in order to minimize added complexity and avoid undue overlap with community status applications. The GAC encourages the continued consideration of this proposal together with the “Closed Generics Proposal”, both proposals having found explicit support in the GAC.
    • Regarding the “Closed Generics Proposal” the GAC finds value in the notion of creating a Framework for Evaluating Closed Generic applications to determine whether those applications serve a legitimate public interest goal."


GNSO Council Statements & Correspondence on the Issue:

  • Letter from Steve Crocker to Cherine Chalaby (7 March 2013):
    • “". . . the Council would like to point out that, although the GNSO did not explicitly consider the issue of “closed generic” TLDs as part of the new gTLD PDP [concluding in 2007], we recall that the issue of restricting new gTLDs was, in general, considered and discussed. At that time, it was the view within the GNSO that it should not be the responsibility of ICANN to restrict the use of gTLDs in any manner, but instead to let new gTLD applicants propose various models; open or closed, generic or not.”
  • Letter from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson (27 July 2015):
    • “". . . the NCPG requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program.”
  • Letter from Jonathan Robinson to Steve Crocker (21 September 2015):
    • “". . . the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is currently available for public comment (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtldsubsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en), contains a discreet subject for each of Closed Generics (Section 4.3.11 of the report) and the Global Public Interest (4.3.9 of the report), as each pertains to New gTLDs. Excerpts of each of these sections can be found in Annex A to this letter. The GNSO Council would, however, like to take this opportunity tonote that there are challenges related to the definition or scope of “global public interest”, as well as determining how this should be integrated into the New gTLD Program, especially as it relates to exclusive registry access to generic strings. Therefore, we welcome any input that you or the ICANN Board may have on this subject, which could be returned either via correspondence or perhaps as public comment to the Preliminary Issue Report.”
  • Letter from Steve Crocker to Jonathan Robinson (12 October 2015):
    • "On the topic of “global public interest” and the related challenges in the definition or scope of the phrase, the GNSO Council’s concerns are noted. As members are aware, staff will be available to support the Community when they have sufficient bandwidth on the broader theme of exploring how the term “public interest” is understood within ICANN’s remit; whether this is through providing background research or other means deemed useful by the Community in  preparing for a bottom-up, multistakeholder approach that is cognizant of the operational, legal, and fiscal parameters and limitations of any potential definition(s).”
  • Letter from Volker Greimann & David Cake to Steve Crocker (24 November 2015):
    • “Following our review of your response during the GNSO Council meeting on 21 October, several Council members pointed out the importance of the development and implementation of a global public interest framework bounded by ICANN's mission. The Council would be interested to learn how the Board has interpreted and considered the public interest in relation to its responsibilities under the ICANN Bylaws, as it may help inform subsequent discussions on the linkage between the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process and the topic of exclusive registry access for gTLD strings representing generic terms.”
  • Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel (12 April 2016):
    • Elaborates on the Board’s interpretation and consideration of the public interest, research of the global public interest framework, and next steps on this work. 

...