14,927
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 80:
Line 80: − + − <blockquote>The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to [allow applicants to] either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application 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.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.<br /> − It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”144 Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote> − − ICANN Board chair [[Maarten Botterman]] sent a letter to the GNSO Council and GAC in March 2022, reinforcing the need for clarity and predictability on the issue of closed generic TLDs: − <blockquote>In its Final Report the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group did not reach consensus on a specific policy on closed generics. The GAC has since reiterated its advice in the Beijing Communique about closed generics/exclusive registries.<br /> − In view of the need for clarity on this issue for the next gTLD application round, the Board invites the GNSO Council and the GAC to explore a mutually agreeable way forward, for which the Board could facilitate a dialogue to formulate a workable framework to identify and handle closed generic applications for the immediate next round of new gTLDs.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/botterman-et-al-to-fouquart-et-al-06mar22-en.pdf GNSO Workspace - Letter from Maarten Botterman to Phillipe Fouquart & Manal Ismail], March 6, 2022</ref></blockquote> − The Board requested a Framing Paper from ICANN org to present a more detailed scope and methodology for the dialogue between the two organizations.<ref name="cgframing">[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/gnso-council-et-al-to-fouqaurt-08mar22-en.pdf GNSO Workspace - Letter from Maarten Botterman to Phillipe Fouquart & Manal Ismail], March 8, 2022</ref>
Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (view source)
Revision as of 18:51, 5 July 2022
, 1 year ago→Closed Generics
===Failure to Achieve Consensus===
===Failure to Achieve Consensus===
====Closed Generics====
====Closed Generics====
The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs. No such TLDs were delegated in the 2012 round, as the Working Group noted:
The Working Group was unable to come to an agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs.
====Resolution of Contention Sets====
====Resolution of Contention Sets====