<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Dear Andy,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>I would like to give more thought to both Steve’s
straw poll and your comments before opining further, but I think it is
important to make clear – having been myself in the room you speak of –
that your characterization (“</span></font><font color=black face=Arial><span
style='font-family:Arial;color:black'>We have heard from individuals that were
in the room that this issue was in fact directly discussed, and an explicit
determination was made to allow closed registries for non-brand terms.”</span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'>) is incorrect. The VI WG did not discuss this issue in the detail
you are alluding to (transcripts will attest to this) and we did not make an
explicit determination to allow closed registries for non-brand terms. I
have little doubt that Co-Chairs, Mikey O’Connor (former BC member) and
Roberto Gaetano (former Board member) will attest to the fact that in the total
number of hours of calls, very little time was spent on this topic relative to all
of the others and there was rough consensus at best that brands should be
allowed to apply and need not use accredited registrars.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Again, the transcripts of the discussions on
this topic will bear this out.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>RA<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Ronald N. Andruff</span></font><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><a href="http://www.rnapartners.com">RNA
Partners, Inc.</a></span></font><span class=MsoHyperlink><u><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Andy Abrams<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, February 20, 2013
2:39 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Steve DelBianco<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> bc - GNSO list<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [bc-gnso] Closed
Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Dear Steve,</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Thank you very much for your work on this
issue. I think we had a productive discussion at last week's BC meeting,
and we look forward to further dialogue leading up to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Beijing</st1:place></st1:City>. As we discussed last week,
from Google's perspective, we respectfully believe it is inappropriate to
address this issue with the broad brush stroke of "closed generics"
given the multitude of different business models, industries and applicants
involved as well as the numerous ways to interpret this phrase. Some of
these business models represent the very type of innovation that was envisioned
for the new gTLD program and would not be possible under the same "pure
open" framework that has existed with every TLD to date. This does
not mean that we believe all potentially affected applications are equally
meritorious or should be given a free pass - far from it, we strongly believe
in the existing ICANN process of public objections and GAC Advice, and are
taking concerns regarding our own particular applications into very careful
consideration.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>However, we believe that the broader
issue ultimately comes down to fairness. We have heard from individuals
that were in the room that this issue was in fact directly discussed, and an
explicit determination was made to allow closed registries for non-brand terms.
Based on our calls with other companies and BC members, we also know that
a large number of businesses have spent the last year preparing various
single-registrant or restricted business models in reliance on the undisputed
fact that the Guidebook currently allows for such practices. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Given this context, I respectfully have
some concerns with the formulation of the straw poll. To us, the issue of
the ROCC exemption versus the 1(b) "reasonably necessary" distinction
are a mere subset of the threshold issue of (1) Change the Guidebook or (2)
Don't Change the Guidebook. ICANN should eventually address the former
question as it works through the details of registry operation, but from the
perspective of business users, I suspect that the details of whether a single
registrant must allow multiple registrars to sell domains to itself are less
relevant than the larger policy issue. For our part, we are still
agnostic on this and will continue to explore it further - we do believe that</span></font><font
face=Arial><span style='font-family:Arial'> there is a reasonable argument
in favor of either Outcome #1 or #2 of the straw poll (but nothing in the
Guidebook to support #3, as through the ROCC lens there is no reasonable way to
distinguish different "types" of closed registries in the Guidebook).
We also respectfully object to the characterization of Outcome #1 as
"anything goes," (though I do like that as the new title of the
public forum!) </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>For these reasons, perhaps it makes sense to restructure the
poll in a manner which reflects the binary discussions we have had in the BC
thus far? To the extent people do have strong feelings about Outcome 1 v.
2, perhaps that can be a subcategory of the status quo position? I
appreciate your consideration.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Best,</span></font><font face=Arial><span
style='font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Andy</span></font><font face=Arial><span
style='font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Steve DelBianco <<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='word-wrap:break-word'>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>BC Members:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>ICANN just opened a public comment
period (<a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm"
target="_blank">link</a>) asking whether to classify certain TLD
applications as "closed generic", and to deter me
"circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted
to adopt open or closed registration policies."</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>As written, this comment
solicitation steers away from the question of whether a registry can own all
the domain names in a TLD. Instead, ICANN is asking whether we need
new policies regarding who may register a domain, as is apparent from this
"background" statement under the public comment:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>"it should be clarified that
the Code of Conduct refers to registry-registrar interactions, rather than
eligibility for registering names in the TLD. Rather than the Code of Conduct,
the true issue of concern being expressed appears to be that in certain
applications, the proposed registration policies are deemed inappropriate by
some parties."</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>That points us to the Registry
Code of Conduct (attached), which was created partly in response to BC concerns
about allowing vertical integration of registries and registrars. Here's
the section most relevant to this discussion:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>1. In connection with the
operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and
will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other
related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of
Registry Services with respect to the TLD to:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>b. register domain names in
its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited
registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and
purpose of the TLD </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Reasonable people interpret 1b
differently. Does 1b prohibit a registry from owning names in its own
TLD, except for limited circumstances? Or does 1b allow a registry to
own any and all names that suit the purpose of their TLD? </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>ICANN legal may further clarify
its interpretation of 1b, but I believe they see 1b as permitting a
"closed generic" TLD to own all its own names.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Whatever the thoughts of ICANN
legal, we have an opportunity to comment on what <u>should</u> be the
interpretation and implications for closed generic TLDs. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>As we discussed last Tuesday, the
BC may not arrive at a consensus or majority view, in which case we could submit
just background information.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>My goal with this email is to to
conduct a "straw" poll of BC members to assess convergence around a
desired policy outcome that would form the basis of a BC Comment on closed
generics.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>First, I compiled a 3-page history
on the BC's support for closed TLDs, starting in 2007 with sponsored TLDs and
then for dot-brand TLDs starting in 2009. (See attached) BC members with
long memories may want to improve on that history, but its only here for
background so let's not get too wrapped-up in that. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>So, here are the 3 potential
outcomes we proposed on the BC call last week. <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'> Please reply with your views and preferences by 21-Feb-2013 and
we'll see whether there's enough support to do a BC position on this before ICANN's
deadline of 7-March.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Outcome #1: <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Anything Goes</span></b>. The registry Code of
Conduct clearly allows a TLD operator to have control over who registers
domains in their TLD, <u>and</u> the operator can own all the domains
if they wish. Under this outcome, a registry could own all the domains
in their TLD without having to ask ICANN for an exemption from the Code of
Conduct.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Outcome #2: <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Exemption Required</span></b>. The registry Code
of Conduct prohibits a TLD operator from registering names in its own TLD,
except for names reasonably necessary for operating the TLD. Under this
outcome, the 1b "except for" does not swallow the rule and
thereby allow control of all domains in the TLD. A registry that wants
to own all the domains in its TLD can still do so, however, if it obtains an
exemption from the Code of Conduct, as provided in Para 6 of the Code:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>6. Registry Operator may request
an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by
ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates
to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations
in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own
exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer
control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not
an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of
Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>All that remains is for ICANN to develop & publish
the process and criteria they will use to determine whether giving an applicant
this exemption is "in the public interest" as required by para 6.
Presumably, the public interest would include considerations of
consumer protect, freedom of expression, competition, innovation, and relevant
pledges made by ICANN in the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>Outcome #3. <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>Only dot-brands may get an exemption</span></b>.
Only dot-Brands should get the Code of Conduct Exemption. That would
allow .Hilton, .Apple, .Google to pursue the exemption, and they should have no
trouble getting it. But Goodyear would not be eligible for an exemption
that allow it to own all names in .tires TLD, for example.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div link=blue vlink=purple>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>If
this straw poll reveals no significant support for any of the above, the BC
would <u>not</u> draft a position on this public comment period. Instead,
the BC might submit just background information and analysis, and perhaps a
Reply comment later on.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'>Steve DelBianco<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'>Executive Director<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'>NetChoice<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><a href="http://www.NetChoice.org" target="_blank">http://www.NetChoice.org</a>
and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org" target="_blank">http://blog.netchoice.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><a href="tel:%2B1.202.420.7482" target="_blank"
value="+12024207482">+1.202.420.7482</a> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div link=blue vlink=purple>
<div>
<div>
<p><font size=3 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br clear=all>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>-- <br>
</span></font><font size=2 color="#333333" face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#333333'>Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel<br>
</span></font><b><font size=2 color="#3333ff" face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3333FF;font-weight:bold'>G</span></font></b><b><font
size=2 color=red face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:red;font-weight:bold'>o</span></font></b><b><font size=2 color="#ffcc00"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#FFCC00;
font-weight:bold'>o</span></font></b><b><font size=2 color="#3333ff"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3333FF;
font-weight:bold'>g</span></font></b><b><font size=2 color="#33cc00"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#33CC00;
font-weight:bold'>l</span></font></b><b><font size=2 color=red face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:red;font-weight:bold'>e</span></font></b><font
size=2 color="#333333" face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial;color:#333333'> | <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">1600 Amphitheatre Parkway</st1:Street>,
<st1:City w:st="on">Mountain View</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94043</st1:PostalCode></st1:address><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><a
href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones" target="_blank" title="Go to phones"
style='text-decoration:initial'><font color=black><span style='color:black'>(650)
669-8752</span></font></a></span></font><font size=2 color="#333333"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>