<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Marc,</p>
<p>As you know, you are only quoting a portion of the proposal. The
Board acted because there was a severe problem. It heard concerns
from the GAC - dozens of Early Warnings against Closed Generics -
and then held a public comment process in which comments flooded
in from organizations, associations, small businesses and
entrepreneurs all over the world. There were editorials written in
newspapers around the world. There was very strong basis for the
global concerns raised about Closed Generics and the action the
Board Governance Committee took. What's being cited below is only
a small part of the overall resolution. <br>
</p>
<p>Also, we know the result: dozens of gTLD applicants changed their
application and .CLOUD, .SEARCH, .BLOG, .BOOK and others are open
because of these changes. Facts. <br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2020 9:18 PM, Marc Trachtenberg
via Gnso-newgtld-wg wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:de6facfaff12428a9b81f0b2a24a0bd7@gtlaw.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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;}
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",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
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",serif;}
p.gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph, li.gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph, div.gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:gmail-m_-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph;
mso-style-priority:99;
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",serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1119714438;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-987365354 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1412123217;
mso-list-template-ids:-1224198658;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alex,<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Your
point is completely manufactured and not based in any fact
or the language that you cite. The Board did decide after
the applications were submitted to not permit closed
generics. You assert that this was because </span>
</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">the
issue was so problematic, that it will force applicants to
either withdraw, or revert to open applications and
present this as if it is a fact as opposed to just your
conclusion that supports your view that every TLD and
every domain name should be available to everyone as if it
is a natural right.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Your
characterization of the Board’s action as “DRASTIC” is
just that – your characterization. That Board has made
many about faces and questionable decisions – are they all
“DRASTIC”? Can the Board only make unexpected and
questionable decisions when there is a “severe problem”?
Then there must be “severe problems” all the time.
Putting the drastic in CAPS does not make your assertion
any more true. And what is the purpose of your repeated
use of quotation marks – are you quoting yourself?</span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As
for the portion you direct us to concentrate on -
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">“…..
subject to rules developed for the next round, to
allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice
concerning exclusive generic TLDs ….”</span></i></b></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">
-
</span></b></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">you
again boldly mischaracterize it. This does not mean we
are stuck with the status quo (assuming that no closed
generics is the status quo as opposed to just applying to
the first round which is another assertion you present as
fact) and the Board did not make clear what the status quo
ought to be despite your attempt to present it that way
regardless of what the language says. In fact, if
anything is clear from the language you cite, it is that
the Board did not intend for no generics to be the status
quo because they specifically directed (or at least
contemplated) the GNSO to develop policy advice on this
issue. It is also the purpose of this working group to
consider procedures from the first round and whether they
are appropriate for the second round. If this group had
to just accept everything from the first round,
Board-decided or otherwise – the group would have no
purpose. And if anything is clear, it’s that this group
has questioned virtually everything from the first round.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Finally,
your assertion that “</span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">At
the very bare minimum the applicant would have to prove
that their application serves the Public Interest (e.g.
the .disaster example); and then the community would have
to be called to decide whether the claim holds water”,
this is also just your opinion and not based on anything
else.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To
be clear, I don’t begrudge your opinion. Everyone has a
right to their opinions and should have the ability to
express those opinions productively in this working group
as I think many in this group do, regardless if I agree
with them. My opinion on closed generics happens to
differ from yours but I don’t know that either view is
right – they are just views. In fact, many people I like
and respect share your view. What I do object to, and find
offensive, is your repeated presentation of opinions and
views as facts and mischaracterization of Board and
community action and language in an attempt to support
those views and I would ask you to stop. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">Marc H.
Trachtenberg</span></b></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Shareholder </span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">Greenberg Traurig, LLP
| 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>
Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span><a
href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif">trac@gtlaw.com</span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span></a><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black"> | </span></span><a
href="http://www.gtlaw.com/" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">www.gtlaw.com</span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span></a><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:1.927in;height:.3125in" id="_x0000_i1029"
src="cid:part4.280E62CE.83083C8F@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Greenberg Traurig" class="" width="185"
height="30" border="0"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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">
Gnso-newgtld-wg
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 18, 2020 7:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words
belong to everyone in a business or industry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Marc,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
gNSO discussed and then decided to NOT create policy around
“closed generics” during the 2007 PDP. This resulted in a
substantial number of applications for “closed” category
defining generic term based new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
board decided AFTER THESE APPLICATIONS WHERE SUBMITTED that
the issue was so problematic, that it will force applicants
to either withdraw, or revert to open applications. <br>
<br>
I would consider such measure as being “DRASTIC”. The board
would have not applied such drastic measure in absence of a
“severe problem”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">But
better concentrate on this portion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">“…..
subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow
time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning
exclusive generic TLDs ….”</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">In
absence of the development of such “rules” (which hasn’t
occurred yet) we are stuck with the status quo – and the
board has made very clear what that status quo ought to be:
NO CLOSED GENERICS. At the very bare minimum the applicant
would have to prove that their application serves the Public
Interest (e.g. the .disaster example); and then the
community would have to be called to decide whether the
claim holds water.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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">
<a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a> [<a
href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Dienstag, 18. Februar 2020 17:39<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words
belong to everyone in a business or industry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alex,<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">Maybe
I am missing something but where in
<b><i><span style="color:#C00000">“…. will be deferred to
the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to
rules developed for the next round, to allow time for
the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive
generic TLDs ….”
</span></i></b>does the Board clearly say that there is
a SEVERE PROBLEM with closed generics?<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">Best
regards,<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Shareholder </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">Greenberg Traurig, LLP |
77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>
Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif">trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black"> |
</span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet
MS",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:1.927in;height:.3125in"
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part4.280E62CE.83083C8F@kathykleiman.com"
alt="Greenberg Traurig" class="" width="185" height="30"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<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 0in 0in 0in">
<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">
Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 18, 2020 4:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words
belong to everyone in a business or industry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0E0E3F">*EXTERNAL
TO GT*</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0D0D0D">Dear
Group,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0D0D0D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0D0D0D">Here
from the June 2015 board meeting resolutions (these are
quotes directly from the ICANN.org website):<br>
<a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en*2.a__;Iw!!DUT_TFPxUQ!X_ngnJWyBiZ7-KZ3YaRq55G_NVzZHzaTWr-pF2bpTCiST-6sHh6pb8Vejr_-3-6ZuB-yXw$"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Advise
Exclusive Generic Applicants for non-contended strings,
or Exclusive Generic Applicants prevailing in contention
resolution that they must elect within a reasonably
limited time to either:<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive
generic TLD, and sign the current form of the New gTLD
Registry Agreement;<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD.
As a result, their application
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">will
be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program,
subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow
time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning
exclusive generic TLDs</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">;
or<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
withdraw their application for a refund consistent with
the refund schedule in the Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I
would like to draw emphasis to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">“….
will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD
Program, subject to rules developed for the next round,
to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice
concerning exclusive generic TLDs ….”</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The
board clearly states that there is a SEVERE PROBLEM, that it
denies closed generic applications, that those REMAIN
ineligible UNTIL the GNSO has “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C00000">developed
advice concerning exclusive generic gTLDs</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">”.
Hairsplitters could argue that this is only true for the
2012 roster. But hey: come on.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">This
is in striking contrast to the assentation that the
ineligibility where to be restricted to the 2012 round only.
The board INSTRUCTED the gNSO to “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">develop
policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLD</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">”,
so in absence of a consensus around such policy advice it is
self-evident that the board’s concerns aren’t addressed at
all; and their “ban” stays active (or we force them to
activate it yet again)<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">We
run the risk to look incompetent if we run into this knife
yet again: if we (like suggested by some here) maintain that
our 2007 PDP was “flawless” – and that we have to repeat
this obvious mistake (allowing closed generics) again; then
here what will happen:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">GAC
will point out the same as it has done in the 2012 round:
asking the board to deny closed generics!<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The
board will note that the gNSO has denied their explicit
request to develop new policy advice; and as a result will
deny closed generics AGAIN!<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This
creates MASSIVE confusion for applicants; something that
we should allow<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<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">I
assume it would be best if we abide by the Board request to
“<span style="color:red">develop policy advice concerning
exclusive generic TLD</span>”. A subgroup was initiated
last year – I am in there; but the group was inactive so
far. We simply should create policy advice. If there is a
consensus around under what set of circumstances allowing
closed generics: fine! Then we allow them. If there is no
consensus: then I guess we have established just that: No
consensus to allow closed generics.<br>
<br>
Here a bit more from the June 2015 board resolutions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">A
Policy Development Process with respect to operating
exclusive generic strings in the "public interest"
should be undertaken by the community. Policy issues on
"closed generic" TLDs should be resolved through the
multistakeholder process.</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">The
public interest goal requirement as stated is too
general and requires greater specificity for
enforceability</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">.
The NGPC should add relevant meaning to the "public
interest" concept by applying the GNSO rationales
regarding the promotion of competition, consumer choice,
market differentiation, and geographical and service
provider diversity as standards for such affirmative
objective showings and findings.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">
Safeguards are important when applicants have chosen to
apply for closed control of a generic term designating a
particular industry where the applicant is engaged in
the conduct of business activities in that industry.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">
Requiring applicants to demonstrate some additional
public interest goal in the context of exclusive
registry access for generic strings would reverse the
deliberate choices made by the ICANN community in its
bottom-up process and impose new evaluation criteria.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">
The status quo as set out in the Applicant Guidebook
should apply so that
</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">both
"open" and "closed" registry access for generic strings
should continue to be allowed in this first application
round, but both should be subject to significant
scrutiny after launch by ICANN to ensure that the
interests of rights owners and consumers are protected</span></i></b><b><i><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79">.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So
to say that the board decision was only pertaining the first
round – but the 2<sup>nd</sup> round would be “open season
for anything” is ignoring the board’s very clear advice.
Board resolutions are our “safety valve” – we should try to
establish our policies in a way that doesn’t require the
board to issue them.<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">And
while we are at it:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Submitting
a generic term based gTLD application, trying to “prove
public interest” by implementing clear launch phases (e.g.
Sunrise), then never living up to such commitment: Should
result in the denial of contract renewal after 10 years – at
least for the 2<sup>nd</sup> round participants. If you
prove your public interest through public availability (via
defined launch periods) – but do not enact any: you have
failed to serve the public interest. Why should ICANN renew
your contract? It shouldn’t! As always: Exceptions might
apply under extraordinary circumstances (Istanbul based
.kurds denied to launch via court order for example).<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">Thanks,<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">Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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">
Mike Rodenbaugh [<a href="mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Dienstag, 18. Februar 2020 16:10<br>
<b>To:</b> Alexander Schubert <<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words belong
to everyone in a business or industry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So-called Closed Generics (however anyone
may define them) were allowed in 2012, as a Consensus Policy
insofar they were very heavily debated by the GNSO for many
years, including the same arguments and many of the same
participants in today's debate. And Closed Generics were
neither defined nor prohibited in the GNSO Consensus Policy
adopted by the Board and then implemented by Staff and GNSO
in the AGB. Thus, Closed Generics were essentially,
explicitly allowed -- and unsurprisingly then there was some
number of applicants for strings that the Board later
unilaterally defined as Closed Generics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Board then made a variance to one
small part of that Consensus Policy, only as to a
specifically defined subset of 2012 applications that the
GAC and some others objected to. The Board specifically
said that resolution had no bearing on future GNSO policy
work. That resolution was never discussed or debated by
the GNSO, until this PDP. So, neither the GNSO nor the
Board have ever changed the 2012 Consensus Policy that
allowed what some call "Closed Generics". To change it
now will require consensus of this WG, which seems
unlikely to happen.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Mike
Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">RODENBAUGH
LAW<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">tel/fax:
+1.415.738.8087<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/rodenbaugh.law__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TJdk660_rz8Q-NrHih8ba6pZ5F5q6fKh70zdCooYJrpAq7oNPAlV7GTRT0cY-3TlciA$"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://rodenbaugh.law</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:26 PM
Alexander Schubert <<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Anne,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is a contradiction. If the board denied “closed
generics” (gTLD applications for generic keyword
based strings) in 2012 then they did for a REASON.
Unless the board specified a “conditional aspect”
for that reason then the rationale for that decision
hasn’t changed just because a decade went by. So the
“ground rule” would be to keep the application rules
as they were in 2012 – namely denying closed
generics. UNLESS the gNSO develops new
recommendations – which then need a new board
approval.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Some
might argue that in 2012 the “problem” with closed
generics wasn’t that bad: only a few dozen generic
terms where taken by industry leaders (apparently
mostly to just block off the entire vertical). So
why bothering?<br>
<br>
Well: In 2012 the COST for a new gTLD was enormous!
Application writing and submission wasn’t yet
streamlined and expensive. Consulting (partly due to
a steep “learning curve”) was expensive. Application
fees alone where almost US $200k. By definition in
2012 there was no PRECEDENCE that industry leaders
would snag up entire category defining killer
keyword based gTLDs. The entire “new gTLD” issue was
“murky”.<br>
<br>
All of this will have DRASTICALLY changed by 2022:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There
will be a DECADE of public experience and exposure
of the new gTLD program and new gTLDs</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
consulting and application submission related fees
will be DRASTICALLY lower – some consultants already
offer packages lower than US $30k – which includes
application writing, submission, contracting and
testing!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
application fee will likely be low, too. Some
already fabulize about US $25k fee floors – or even
BELOW!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
“myth” that leading industry giants are massively
hoarding “their” verticals (industry defining
category killer generic terms) ain’t a “myth”
anymore: it’s a viable truth – proven by the 2012
application roster.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="gmail-m-3270389050237085267msolistparagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Consultants
will swarm out to big corporations who have ample
marketing budgets and inflated egos: “If YOU are not
securing ‘.CategoryDefiningKeyword’ then your
competition will: be clever and have at minimum a
horse in the race: let us apply for it on your
behalf”. Image how incredibly STUPID the head of
digital marketing of a Multi-Billion corporation
looks if their smaller competitor controls “their”
category keyword gTLD: this could cost him his head.
In comparison for the price of a half page New York
Times ad he could play hero and showcase to his
board how “farsighted” he is.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">So
if anything then the underlying “problem” that lead
the board in 2012 to deny “closed generics” only got
worse – MUCH worse: Lower “fees & overall cost”
combined with established precedence = disaster!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">And
while we have an obligation to keep harm away from
the Internet community by continuing to deny “closed
generics” that logically implies that we also make
sure that in the 2<sup>nd</sup> round there will be
no possibility for “effectively closed generics”:
namely generic term based open applications that
prove their “public interest” by promising launch
periods (e.g. the Sunrise period) – but then never
EXECUTE the Sunrise period – but rather are closed
to the public and still allow the applicant to run
100 domains. If you have a Sunrise period in your
application then you ought to execute that in a
reasonable frame of time – or else you render the
gTLD “closed”. I suggest we provide 12 month
(extendable by another 12 month if reasons are
provided for the delay) to launch your Sunrise (if
you have one in your application) – but at BARE
MINUMUM ICANN should be crystal clear that for
registries that have a Sunrise in their application
any “contract renewal expectation” will only apply
if such Sunrise has been executed. Otherwise
industry giants will simply snag up category
defining keyword based gTLDs – and leave them
inactive – just to make sure they “control the
namespace”. Or they use their 100 domains and
effectively run it as closed generic.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
the general public (or Congress for that matter)
would get wind of how sloppy we are protecting the
public interest here: they would go bananas. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alexander</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a
name="m_-3270389050237085267__MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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">
Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Dienstag, 18. Februar 2020 12:16<br>
<b>To:</b> Kathy Kleiman <<a
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic
words belong to everyone in a business or
industry</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D">HI Kathy,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D">I do think it’s important for
the WG to understand what Jeff’s position is
procedurally on this topic. It appears to me that
Paul is correct that there was no policy against
Closed Generics in 2012 and that the Board
resolution is limited to the 2012 round. So if we
stick with the “ground rules” of the PDP, it appears
that the next round will be “open season” for Closed
Generic applications. This is especially important
to consider now that the Working Group has taken a
“rough consensus” position (with some of us
dissenting) that going forward, if a string is
applied for in the next round, that application will
act as a complete bar to applications for the same
string in any subsequent round. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D">I would strongly advocate for
skipping this topic in the next call and scheduling
it for the F2F meeting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D">Anne</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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">
Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Generic words
belong to everyone in a business or industry</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<p>As we revisit the topic of Closed Generics, I would
like to share a few thoughts as a reminder on how this
issue (of "generic words") has been dealt with in
other forums. This is a long-established issue...
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1) Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, US
Trademark Office: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>"Generic terms are incapable of functioning as marks
denoting source, and are not registrable on the
Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental
Register." 807.14(e)(ii)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2) Our own Community Objection process reviewed and
raised the same deep concerns for gTLDs in which the
applicant (a competitor in a field)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>ICC New gTLD Community Objections determination:
"The establishment of unrestricted, exclusive rights
to a gTLD that is strongly associated with a certain
community or communities, particularly where those
communities are, or are likely to be, active in the
Internet sphere <b>seems to me inherently detrimental
to those communities' interests." [Note: the
"communities" being referred to here are commercial
communities. The issue of a closed .MOBILE was
raised by the CTIA which represents the US mobile
wireless industry. </b>1-1316-6133<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="3" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only
for the use of the individual or entity to which
they are addressed. If the reader of this message or
an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message or attachment to the intended recipient you
are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by replying to the sender. The
information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for
the personal and confidential use of the intended
recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TJdk660_rz8Q-NrHih8ba6pZ5F5q6fKh70zdCooYJrpAq7oNPAlV7GTRT0cYgMEFXfc$"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the
processing of your personal data for purposes of
subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN
Privacy Policy (<a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TJdk660_rz8Q-NrHih8ba6pZ5F5q6fKh70zdCooYJrpAq7oNPAlV7GTRT0cYlZRGjcY$"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TJdk660_rz8Q-NrHih8ba6pZ5F5q6fKh70zdCooYJrpAq7oNPAlV7GTRT0cYR-cQpX0$"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>).
You can visit the Mailman link above to change your
membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="3" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you are not an intended recipient of
confidential and privileged information in this email, please
delete it, notify us immediately at
<a href="mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com" moz-do-not-send="true">postmaster@gtlaw.com</a>,
and do not use or disseminate the information.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>