ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) seems to be changing its stance on allowing "closed generic" gTLDs in the next application round.



During ICANN 76 in Cancun, the GAC expressed doubts about the viability of closed generics, reversing its previous position. The GAC, along with the GNSO and At-Large, has been engaged in a facilitated dialogue to determine whether closed generics should be permitted and under what conditions.

Now, the GAC is stating that no policy option, including the prohibition of closed generics, should be excluded if a satisfactory solution cannot be found. The GAC initially agreed to the dialogue with the understanding that prohibition would not be an outcome.

Closed generics refer to single-registrant gTLDs that match dictionary words but are not trademarks. Examples include McDonald's controlling all names in .burger or Jack Daniels controlling the entire .whiskey zone. These types of TLDs were not banned in the 2012 application round, resulting in over 180 applications, including L'Oreal's .makeup and Symantec's .antivirus.

However, the GAC raised concerns about these applications in 2013, stating that exclusive registry access for generic terms should serve a public interest goal. Consequently, ICANN implemented a retroactive ban on closed generics. Some applicants withdrew their bids, while others tried to circumvent the issue or defensively held onto their gTLDs.

In 2020, when the GNSO was developing policy for the next new gTLD round, it failed to reach a consensus on whether closed generics should be allowed. The default position from the 2012 round allowed them by policy, but in practice, they were not permitted. This issue was handed over to ICANN for resolution.

A year ago, ICANN suggested that the GAC and GNSO engage in a facilitated dialogue to resolve this matter. However, two "edge outcomes" were explicitly ruled out: allowing closed generics without restrictions or prohibiting them under any circumstance. The GAC agreed to these terms.

After days of closed-door facilitated dialogue, consensus has not been reached on questions like what constitutes the "public interest." Now, the GAC states that no policy option, including the prohibition of closed generics, should be excluded if a satisfactory solution cannot be found. Any potential solution would still require consensus agreement from the GAC.