<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Hi Paul,<div>I greatly appreciate your email. I'll respond quickly now, and in more depth later day (RPM Working Group meeting soon, as you know!).</div><div><br /></div><div>On this most difficult and sensitive of all of the issues in our SubPro WG is not laid out well for the public. This is not your fault - or mine - but it is key that it be rectified before we go public with this summary/request for comment.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Ban" and "effectively ban" are not spin, but clear words showing the impact of the resolution. I don't understand the mantra I keep hearing about the words of the Board's resolution. Paul, you and I know that only lawyers read resolutions and Supreme Court cases. :-) Everyone else cares about what the resolution means - and what impact it created. That's what the words "ban" and "effectively ban" mean -- and I renew my objection to their removal (and the procedural precedent my request has under our procedural rules). </div><div><br /></div><div>This section is missing so much basic information -- we don't provide the public with anything clear or factual about "closed generics are.". This means we will only hear from "insiders" with vested interest and not the broader ICANN and Internet Community. Because we have not explained key facts, issues and background -- plus the huge sensitivity of the whole issue and what is at stake -- people won't be able comment. Facts are key - and they're missing (and key ones are newly deleted).</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm glad we agree that we should talk about next steps and "What happens if the WG does not agree?" Shout-out to Jeff and Cheryl: what could be more important to share? We've spent weeks (months?) on this question. We have to publish to the community.. </div><div><br /></div><div>We have not done our job until we lay this all out clearly. I look forward to working with all of you. And renew my objection to the language now being floated. Only the most innermost insiders will have a clue... </div><div><br /></div><div>Best, Kathy</div><div><br /><blockquote><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "McGrady Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com></div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div>"Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:26:25 +0000<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 30 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 6<br /><br /><br /><div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Thanks Kathy.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Taking each in turn:</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">“Ban” and “effective ban” are spin. Members of the WG objected to them all along the way. The spin somehow made it into the draft, which I and many others objected to. Spin is never more accurate than facts,
which is why I suggested we put in the actual facts - what the Board actually did. I understand that what the Board actually did may not help those who want there to be a ban on so-called closed generics. But silencing the Board’s actual voice in favor
of spin won’t inform the community of what is really going on. If we think the community can’t read and understand Board resolutions (I don’t, it is pretty darn clear), well, clarity of Board resolutions is outside the scope of this PDP.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">One former member of a Board can’t speak for the Board. That is not how Board’s operate. They speak with one voice via resolutions. Further, there is no need for anyone to speak for the Board. The Board’s
resolution says what it says. I understand that opponents of so-called closed generics would prefer that George’s view of the Board’s resolution governs rather than what the Board actually said, but that is not how Boards work. We shouldn’t substitute George’s
opinion (no matter how much we may love and appreciate George) for the Board’s actual resolution (which is why I asked that it be included in the draft) Should an applicant run in to trouble later and try to rely on George’s opinion rather than the Board’s
resolution, that won’t be very helpful to the applicant (or anyone else).</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">We have agreement here, Kathy. But, the co-chairs did not want to discuss what the status quo means and they have now cut off discussion on this entire topic on our calls, so I guess we have to live with the
ambiguity. If, however, the goal here is to claim that the status quo is a ban or effective ban, I don’t think that has any legs (due to the Board’s resolution).</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;"></span></b></p><p><b> </b></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">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. </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">Kathy, we don’t need to editorialize what the Board said, especially when the editorial is nothing more than trying to rework in the myth of the ban or effective ban. It is also quite unhelpful for you to spin
those of us who want to stick with the Board’s resolution rather than your spin as somehow “ignoring the Board.” So, I neither support the very lopsided document that you submitted nor your attempts to reintroduce the spin here. Let’s stick with what the
Board said instead. Facts are better than spin. Always.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Best,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Paul</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div></div>
</div>
<br /><p style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:#816d5c;"><font color="#97999b"><font size="3">To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, </font><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;font-weight:normal;"><a href="https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe" title="" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;font-weight:normal;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;font-weight:normal;">subscribe
here</span></a></span><font size="3">. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19
</font><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;"><a href="https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit" title="" style="font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#A22831;">Resource Toolkit</span></a></span><font size="3">.</font><br /><br />
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please
notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.</font></p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;"> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br /><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 8, 2020 9:27 PM<br /><b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br /><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 30 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 6</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">Hi All,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">On Monday, I objected to the deletions of words that made Section 27.3 (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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">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. </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:'Helvetica Neue';">Best, Kathy</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<br /><font face="Arial" size="1"><br /></font>
</blockquote></div></body></html>