<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 19 Jul 2020, at 16:53, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><a name="_MailEndCompose" class="">Another question is whether just the program in general must be in the public interest or whether every single aspect does. If every aspect then arguably every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must be in the public interest and justified as such. I think the latter doesn’t make much sense and is not manageable and that it is thus the former – that the program more generally must be in the public interest. On this assumption I don’t think that every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must specifically be in the public interest and think the same for closed generics. </a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Agreed. The overall program needs to serve public interest, not every component in its every aspect. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><a name="_MailEndCompose" class="">That said, I think there is also an argument that closed generics generally can be in the public interest and that they Introduce competition in the registration of domain names, albeit not in the traditional sense of just higher volumes of registrations but potentially in higher<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i class="">quality</i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>registrations.</a></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I think it would be hard to prove that a closed generic have 0 chance of serving public interest. But the group discussions implied that is so hard to find such an example and it's so easy to game possible rules that those are not worth accepting as TLDs. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Which is sad, because I have at least one idea of a such a closed generic... but I understand the concerns and the search for a healthier system overall. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>