<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=us-ascii">
<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:"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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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;}
--></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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for this proposal George and the team. The major item that jumps out at me is that the TLD structure you describe is not really a “closed” TLD, but rather is akin an “open restricted” TLD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anyone can already apply for an “open restricted” TLD without any of the restrictions you have set forth in this paper. This is like .bank, .pharmacy or others that have third party registrants who agree to very strict validation requirements.
So, if I can apply for a .earthquake (your example) as an “open restricted” TLD without any of the restrictions that are contained within your paper, why would I apply for your “PICgTLD” and agree up front to (a) no expectancy of renewal; (b) restrictions
on transfers; (c) obligations of a Council, (d) approval by the board, etc.? What is the benefit for me to do that when I can achieve the same thing without agreeing to any of that?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now if we stated that all of the registrations are “owned” by the Registry itself for use in connection with itself and its members, then perhaps that gets closer to the closed TLD. Thus, the registry could “license” registrations to
third parties (not transfer ownership) so long as the registry itself always maintains ownership of the names and can control the type of content on the sites.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for kicking off the discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img width="300" height="3" style="width:3.125in;height:.0312in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D65F42.B25678A0"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="border:solid white 1.0pt;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in"><img width="219" height="123" style="width:2.2812in;height:1.2812in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01D65F42.B25678A0"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="border:solid white 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt 5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#06175F">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Founder & CEO</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#06175F">JJN Solutions, LLC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">p: +1.202.549.5079</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">E: </span>
<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1155CC">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">http://jjnsolutions.com</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>George Sadowsky<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest within the DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe
that it has merit and deserves consideration by both the working group and the broader ICANN community, and we welcome the opportunity to present it for comment, discussion and criticism. We believe that while there are improvements can be made, the approach
of creating such a category of TLDs, trusted and protected to serve a public interest, is a goal that can be achieved.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious consideration and criticism by the community. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">George<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></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"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>