<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Monday, I objected to the deletions of words that made
Section 2.7.3 (Closed Generics) clear and accessible to the larger ICANN
Community. The words “ban” and “effectively
ban” are clear and accurate; that’s exactly what the Board resolution did in
the first round. By the rules of our
editing, this objection should act as a bar on the change. We agreed for these “I
can’t live with it” changes that we all agree or they don’t go in– and we have set
aside many fine changes for lack of full agreement.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, we heard from George Sadowsky, then a member of the
Board, that the 2015 Board resolution on Closed Generics is meant to stand
until the GNSO comes up with another policy. If we had any question about what
the Board meant, that’s our answer and we should share it.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, I heard (and agree) that the question of default is
unclear to the public. This procedural question is very important for the
public to understand and comment on, and not clear in the current version.</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am willing to withdraw my objections if we add further
language to a) clarify the Board resolution and GAC advice, and b) make clear
the additional question of “default” in future rounds. To that end, I offer the
attached language (showing the full edit history of the WG) with these newly-offered changes. Attached. </p>Best, Kathy</body></html>