<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)"><!--[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: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:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:236743712;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1526701076 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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
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:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:952857801;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:720947184 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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'>Dear Greg,<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'>A long read but worth it (excellently written):<br><br>Especially: <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%'>“If you agree, then we must create a policy that allows generic strings serving a public interest goal, with sufficient guidance so that this policy can be implemented with predictability. I think anything less goes back to the GNSO Council to resolve. We can't make this go away by inaction; it will wander among us as an unfulfilled policy objective, haunting us until we bring it peace.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><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'>You seem to agree that we have to act within the boundaries of public interest. If we all here can agree to it: then a path forward is much clearer.<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'>So a simple question:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do we have WG members that deny the requirement for closed generics having to serve the public interest (“serving a public interest goal”)?<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'>Because in my memory this was where we always got derailed in the past: I remember that some WG members denied the requirement for public interest.<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'><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><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'> Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 13, 2020 7:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I've been following this thread and I've gone back to look at the Beijing Communique and the Board Resolution and Rationale and think this through. I apologize for the length of this post, but at least it's my first in this thread. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I think the Board was attempting to take a nuanced position. The Board did not exactly adopt the GAC Advice, but neither did they reject it. To some extent, they kicked the can down the road, and here we are. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>We can start with the GAC advice, which was disarmingly simple: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The GAC advice did not ban closed generics. The GAC advice could have allowed a closed generic to proceed in the prior round -- if the TLD met the safeguard of "serving a public interest goal." It appears that the Board looked into making this happen; unfortunately, there was no existing capability to make a "public interest goal" determination. The Rationale shows that the Board asked the GNSO to provide policy guidance on this point, perhaps hoping to fill this gap. The GNSO demurred, based on timing concerns and the Council's limited remit (and perhaps to avoid de facto "negotiations" with the GAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The Board was thus left with no way forward to implement closed generics in the last round, unless they (a) rejected GAC advice (which the Board has generally sought to avoid) or (b) allowed Org to create a public interest test under the guise of "implementation" (which would have opened several Pandora's boxes). Thus, the Board couldn't truly adopt the GAC advice in the prior round.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The Board resolution did not ban closed generics either. A ban would have been at odds with the GAC advice, which expressly offered guardrails for closed generics. In this spirit, the Board created three options. None of these provided the result the GAC advice envisioned, but neither did they reject the GAC advice. Most importantly, a path forward for closed generic applications is among the options. None of the three options -- switch, withdraw or wait until the next round -- allowed a closed generic application to proceed in the prior round, but the "wait" option preserved closed generic applications for consideration in the next round (i.e., this round). So, not a ban. But permission with a major caveat -- GNSO policy was needed to make this wrork<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>But where does that leave us? </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Can we say the Board accepted the GAC advice? The Board did not expressly say so, and the Resolution does not clearly characterize its relationship to the GAC advice. The "Resolved" clause follows the spirit of the GAC advice, recognizing it could not be put in place for that round: the Board "requests that the GNSO specifically <i>include the issue</i> of <b>exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal</b> as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program." The Board falls short on clarity; it does not require the PDP outcome to include the "public interest goal" criterion. Perhaps the Board didn't want to be seen as dictating a policy outcome to the GNSO. But it's clear what the Board wanted.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The last paragraph of the Rationale supports this, saying that "<span style='color:#333333'>The adoption of the </span>GAC<span style='color:#333333'> advice will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the </span>GAC<span style='color:#333333'> advice concerning the New </span>gTLD<span style='color:#333333'> Program."</span> If this is meant to say that the Board adopted the GAC advice, it's awfully vague, and of course, the GAC advice can't be adopted in practice without a PDP-created "public interest goals" test and method for applying for and reviewing closed generic applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Taking all this into account, it seems apparent that the goal of both the GAC and the Board was to allow closed generics to proceed if, and only if, there was a public interest goal requirement. And it was the Board's expectation that we would make this happen.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>In the end, this tells us what we should have done -- or more optimistically what we could still do. But it does not tell us what the status quo would be if we failed. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The GNSO Council is quoted in the Board's Rationale with what could be their version of the status quo: "The GNSO Council stated that, "although the GNSO did not explicitly consider the issue of 'closed generic' TLDs as part of the new gTLD PDP, we recall that the issue of restricting new gTLDs was, in general, considered and discussed. At that time, it was the view within the GNSO that it should not be the responsibility of ICANN to restrict the use of gTLDs in any manner, but instead to let new gTLD applicants propose various models; open or closed, generic or not.'" That is certainly the status quo of 2007 and 2012, but it is not the status quo of 2015.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The Board Resolution is not a prohibition, but it is also not a self-evaporating decision (which I once thought it was). If our general rule is that the status quo is the AGB as implemented and with all Board decisions included, then I think we stick with that rule here.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I think that means that the status quo is this: <b>Closed generic TLDs may be applied for in this round, in the hope that a public interest goals requirement could still be put in place for the round. If not, those applications can opt to switch to open, withdraw, or wait for the next round. This could be simplified to say that the status quo is that closed generic TLDs will be allowed with a public interest goals requirement, but that this requirement must be defined in this PDP or a subsequent one.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>In that case, we have failed the status quo. Such failure should be rewarded neither with a "ban" or an "open season." Instead, we have an "incomplete." If you agree, then we must create a policy that allows generic strings serving a public interest goal, with sufficient guidance so that this policy can be implemented with predictability. I think anything less goes back to the GNSO Council to resolve. We can't make this go away by inaction; it will wander among us as an unfulfilled policy objective, haunting us until we bring it peace.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:20 PM Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>The bottom line at this point is that the only reason to include anything other than what the Board actually resolved is to add commentary supporting a particular point of view on whether closed generics should be allowed and if so, when. The only thing we can agree upon is that we can't agree. So let the Board speak for itself and people who read the report can interpret it as they will. <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><b>Marc H.Trachtenberg</b> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Shareholder<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Greenberg Traurig, LLP<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>77 West Wacker Drive<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chicago, IL 60601<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Office (312) 456-1020<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Mobile (773) 677-3305<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Jul 12, 2020, at 4:29 PM, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='color:#0E0E3F'>*EXTERNAL TO GT*</span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Jeff,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Let me start by highlighting your good stewardship in this group. I am amazed how you lead us - and how you orbit around all aspects of this PDP. Very good job.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding the ".disaster" example:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That's the problem with examples; they initially make sense - but when diving into details: they might turn out not so good. In the case of the Red Cross applying for any generic term based new gTLD: just because their work is so extraordinary humanitarian doesn't mean any potential generic gTLD is deemed to be worthy to be taken by them. So when people poked holes in this example then less as to prove no example can be given - but more to prevent having an insufficient example in our WG report.<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>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><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><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id="gmail-m_8359990364835939769composer_signature"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;color:#364F67'>Sent from my Samsung device<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com" target="_blank">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>> <br>Date: 7/12/20 18:36 (GMT+02:00) <br>To: George Sadowsky <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>> <br>Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <br>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks George for keeping the dialogue going and I think this is very helpful.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So, I presented an example before (and in) the initial report that I came up with. The example was an application for .disaster by the International Red Cross. The application (made up by me) was to have second level names given to specific disasters to serve as the official Red Cross fund raiser for these events. Examples include HurricaineMaria.disaster, covid19VA.disaster, covid19UK.disaster, etc. Users would know that if they went to these sites and donated, that the money would actually be going to the official Red Cross and to official sources. The goal would be to drastically reduce the amount of fraud to end users from fake fundraising campaigns.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Those that opposed closed generics did not agree that this would be good enough. They argued that generic words should be open to all “competitors” and why should the Red Cross monopolize a word/string. They come from the very traditional view that second level domains should be available to all (with restrictions). It is a view of end users being the registrants of domains as opposed to end users being those that use the Internet in general. Opponents argued “why couldn’t they just apply for .redcross” or “why cant they just make it open”? So essentially it became a debate about words and generic ness and who has a right to them as opposed to looking at the application itself to see if it served a public interest goal. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>When it became apparent that even in this humanitarian extreme example that members of the working group were unwilling to consider the application that we decided to end the discussion because it was clear that no example would satisfy the “serving a public interest goal” to members of the group. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I hope that helps explain a little bit more how we got here and that we have indeed tried to discuss some examples. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Get <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1t0bOOWF0$" target="_blank">Outlook for iOS</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="98%" align=center></div><div id="gmail-m_8359990364835939769divRplyFwdMsg"><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'> George Sadowsky <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 12, 2020 9:35:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com" target="_blank">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Kleiman Kathy <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text</span> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks, Jeff, for a thorough and and balanced response. I have several comments and suggestions, interspersed in the text below.<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 Jul 11, 2020, at 11:50 PM, Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com" target="_blank">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks George. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is helpful, but I am not sure that any part of the Board resolution or rationale necessarily supports the notion that the default position be an outright ban. In reading the resolution and rationale again, one could read that as meaning that the board was not looking to ban closed generics altogether, but was looking for guidance as to how applications for closed generics could be evaluated as “serving a public interest goal.”<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1tDn1BScM$" target="_blank">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1tDn1BScM$</a> <br>_______________________________________________<br>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1t79nX2yM$" target="_blank">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1t79nX2yM$</a> ) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1t5yO8t_M$" target="_blank">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VFYmMUj6rLqzvQYxqjU02Kinys6WMsx-qvncEa1LBXK4V3G66AraAqvp5U1t5yO8t_M$</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></div></blockquote><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" 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" target="_blank">postmaster@gtlaw.com</a>, and do not use or disseminate the information.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">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></body></html>