<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi Rubens,<br><br>that’s why I included:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%'>They would need to provide extraordinary circumstances to get an extension.</span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 29, 2019 2:44 PM<br><b>To:</b> Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><br><b>Cc:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 29 Aug 2019, at 08:16, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Maxim,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thanks for bringing this up. Well: CURRENTLY there are only a few “cases”. So let these few brands continue to operate their gTLDs effectively as “closed generic”.<br><br>That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down the loophole for future rounds. We would open the floodgates if we wouldn’t.<br><br>So if “closed generics” remain unavailable (which the “small group” is sorting out right now) ICANN should incorporate in the RA (registry agreement) clear provisions regarding the rollout timeline – and penalties for failing to roll out within a specific period; including but not limited to cancel the contract. If an applicant is the only registrant within its gTLD – and that over a prolonged period of time – he is (inadvertently) meeting the definition of a “closed generic” (as defined by the community). The “rollout grace period” could be several years long. But when somebody doesn’t roll out and offer no concrete plans how to do so MANY YEARS after delegation? They would need to provide extraordinary circumstances to get an extension. They applied for the gTLD in order to provide registrations to the public. If they do not provide registrations to the public: how does that benefit the public? How does that meet the ICANN mission? It doesn’t. We need to make that a “breach of contract”.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Alexander,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And what responsibility for ICANN not to derail applicant's plans would be also enshrined in the contract ? Fairness stipulates that this should go both ways. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Rubens<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>