<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" class="">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language:</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Hi Phil</div><div><br class=""></div><div>While most other topics were discussed during our call today, there is one topic left about deviation from policy:</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; text-indent: -0.25in;" class=""><span class="" style="text-indent: -0.25in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span class="">4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';" class=""> </span></span></span><span class="" style="text-indent: -0.25in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and</span></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Not all implementations of the new gTLD program are fully adherent to policy; actually, a good number of them are not. In RPMs specifically, the approved policy included a Clearing-house, Pre-Launch Trademark Claims, Sunrise registrations and a GPML (Globally Protected Marks Lists). The actual implementation kept the clearinghouse concept, changed claims to be a period after launch instead of pre-launch, kept sunrise registration, didn't implement a GPML; if the 2012-round staff implementation is to become policy, then policy needs to be updated to reflect that. The status quo is not approved GNSO policy. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>