<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 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
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Dear Sub Team Members,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 March. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording.</i> See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings</a>. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Please also see the attached slides and PDF referenced below. Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Action Items/Discussion Notes 30 March</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>1. Recap for ICANN58<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Focused on polishing questions for CC2.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Added new questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- CC2 published and out for public comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- No comments that would result in a new focus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>2. Closed Generics<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Recap of what was discussed:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Closed Generics -- Background Information (slide 4)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- "Closed Generic" is referred to in the community as a "TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>What's in writing? (slide 5)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- No reference in the AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Registry Agreement has Spec. 11.3.d. "defined as a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services groups, organizationor things from things of others."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Exceptions to the RA that allow for "Exclusive Use" (slide 6)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Granted to Code of Conduct.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Registry qualifies as a "Brand TLD" as defined in Sepc 13 as a string where...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Closed Generics --- Pros and Cons (slide 8)<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- From the public comment forum on closed generics.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Find if there is or not potential harm in allowing closed generics as well as any other notable findings from the public comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Summary of public comments available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-08jul13-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Pros: Allow Closed Generics (reading from the PDF)<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- There definitely seems to be a different definition of a user depending if you are in favor or against. Those in favor of not having them define the user as the registrant -- the registrant's right to register those names. Those who favor having Closed Generics look at the user as the end user who goes to the web site, as opposed to the registrant. We need to be definitive on competition -- is it registrants or end users?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- When we look at the end user it could be described as the customer of the registry offering closed generics. End users are the individuals looking at the web site in a closed generic TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- At the time the Closed Generics came into play the applications were already submitted for operating Closed Generics. Example was .search. There were a number of complaints saying the Google and other companies should not be able to take a generic name and use it for their own purposes internally as that would harm consumers. A lot of people who filed comments said that ICANN shouldn't change the requirements midway.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- On the consumer argument: If you look at one of the cons says [third on the PDF list] "closed generics favor large industry players..." You are talking about big registrars, but people will want to buy produces at the second level web site.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Is ICANN supposed to protect registrants as users or the end users as users (those who use the web site)? Not sure that ICANN made that determination.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Part of ICANN's mission is to act in the public interest and it is public interest to limit closed generics because it limits consumer choice. Is it ICANN's public interest to protect registrant's rights to register a name or to get new and innovative content supplied by the registry who is also the registrant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- The term "public interest" can be confusing in a general context and especially the ICANN content. If we start to look at what types of content people can put online we have stepped out of bounds. But it seems that this is what ICANN did in this case. The public interest weighed in favor of registrants being able to register a generic string, rather than a registries innovative model operated for end users.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Take a step back and not assume the ICANN got it right. If we believe ICANN shouldn't be involved in that kind of regulation wouldn't that overturn what ICANN did and allow Closed Generics.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Also seems to apply to reguirements for monitoring abuse -- Spec 11.b. Applies in safeguards and the definition can change depending on the topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- Need kind of common definition -- registrant or consumers/end users.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Cons: Restrict Closed Generics (reading from PDF):<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- The rule was that if you are a generic ICANN covers its tracks -- it still has the right if it determines your string is generic (Spec 11.3.d.) Don't think it was meant to be on a case-by-case basis, but that ICANN wanted a rule.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>-- There is a problem in the implementation itself because it is not being implemented for certain strings -- registration policies for some strings.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Jeff Neuman: So in theory, although a closed generic may harm a registrant's ability to get a domain name in that TLD, but at the end of the day, the use of the TLD in a closed generic may actually be more beneficial for the end user (the closed TLD's customer)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: I don't understand this one.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Phil Buckingham: Jeff , I am confused ! These are CLOSED generics - so the end users are not customers - there is no arms length transaction. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: Who the domain owner is, if it's a closed generic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Emily Barabas: Steve -- I will see if I can find the original comment that this came from. If ICANN regulates the right of domain name registrants to operate closed generics, ICANNwould actually limit free expression by imposing collective obligations and top-down regulations on domain owners. NCSG Members (4 Mar. 2013); M. Rodenbaugh (6 Mar. 2013)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Gg Levine (NABP): Wouldn't a closed generic be operated as a .brand?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: If registrants are barred from a closed generic, then I don't see how the collective obligations/top down regulations come into play. That seems much clearer to me, Jeff. Perhaps "domain owners" then should be "TLD applicants." <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Samantha Demetriou: It seems to me that if ICANN wades into making decisions on behalf of a "consumer" in this context it gets into content regulation, which is outside its remit<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Phil Buckingham: There fore there is a direct relationship between the top level ( the owner ) and the end user . Therefore the owner (can ) CONTROLS who their end users are. Surely this is anti competitive , limit consumer choice.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Karen Day: @Phil - how is it anti competitive? You aren't limiting who can offer similar services? Just like with a trademark, to companies can offer identical services, but can't use the same name. Why can't 1 compnay have a TLD and not another?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: What does the CCT say about public interest? Anyone?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Jeff Neuman: They have not addressed this topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Kurt Pritz: @ Jeff - The rules were set out in advance - "closed generics" were allowed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Gg Levine (NABP): Don't the safeguards, which the board requires, address the interests of end users?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: I'd love to see some metrics on this for Round 1. How many traditional domain industry insiders filed for closed generics, versus new players to the industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Jeff Neuman: I would think industry insiders applied for open generic TLDs because that was the model they were used to and that is how they make money (selling registrations). I cant think of any industry insider that applied for a closed generic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Steve Coates: Do we have a list of closed generics?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Jeff Neuman: @Steve - you mean the list of those that initially applied as closed generics, because there are no closed generics now.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri'>Kurt Pritz: Two comments: (1) Isn’t the world’s largest book seller operating .book the wet dream of the new gTLD program? We would have already seen innovation, not to mention the attention it would have brought to the new gTLD program (which is sorely lacking in public recognition); why should that be stifled? (2) at the end of the day, these are just domain names. What is the difference between .book and book.com? Everything is temporary. One party might have control for a while but resources always flow to the parties that value them most highly. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>