<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 29 Aug 2019, at 08:16, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" class="">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Maxim,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">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 class=""><br class="">That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down the loophole for future rounds. We would open the floodgates if we wouldn’t.<br class=""><br class="">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”.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Alexander,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>