<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"></head>
<body>
Marc, we can agree to disagree on this.<br><br>
I find the words "<i>requests that the GNSO specifically include the
issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public
interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on
subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program" very clear. <br><br>
The Board is asking the GNSO to consider rules associated with
"exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public
interest goal".<br><br>
</i>Certainly the PDP COULD say "we have considered them and reject
the concept and believe that there should be no prohibition". But
unless we can get a strong consensus on that (with the hope that the GAC
will not again object), then what we are supposed to be considering is
rules for such TLDs that can satisfy the PI goal. That is what my group's
proposaal does, and as I understand it, that is what Jeff's proposal is
trying to do.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-09-16 02:35 PM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><a name="_MailEndCompose"></a>
Alan,<br>
<br>
In the section you cited below, the Board directed the GNSO to
specifically <b><i><u>consider</u></i></b> the issue exclusive registry
access for generic strings serving a public interest goal. Which is
exactly what we have been doing in the many discussion on the topic of
closed generics. The Board did not direct the GNSO to come to the
conclusion that exclusive registry access for generic strings can only
exist if it serves a public interest goal. Rather, the Board
directed the GNSO to specifically consider this issue because the GAC
advised that generic strings can only exist if they serve a public
interest goal. This is because the Board must consider GAC advice,
but not necessarily follow it. Accordingly, if the WG made a
recommendation that closed generics should be allowed without a public
interest requirement this<i> </i><b><u>would</u></b> be aligned with the
Board’s instructions to the GNSO, so long as the issue of whether or not
the public interest goal should be required was discussed – which it
clearly was (and is). <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
<b>Marc H. Trachtenberg</b><br>
Shareholder <br>
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL
60601<br>
Tel 312.456.1020 <br>
Mobile 773.677.3305<br>
<a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com">trac@gtlaw.com</a> |
<a href="http://www.gtlaw.com /" eudora="autourl">
www.gtlaw.com </a> <br>
<br>
<img src="cid:.0" width="185" height="30" alt="Greenberg Traurig"><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan
Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for
Delegating Closed Generics"<br>
<br>
<b>*EXTERNAL TO GT*<br>
</b>While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I
noted something that I think needs to be considered going
forward.<br><br>
In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for
Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation
of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the
Board action in response to GAC Advice:<br>
<i>The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications
for ?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy
recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in
subsequent rounds.</i> <br>
That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is
omitted. The exact wording was:<br>
<i>NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of
exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest
goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent
rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis
with regards to the progress on the issue.</i> <br>
<b>The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to
initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings
SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST.<br><br>
</b>I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest
is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear
requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. <br><br>
Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not
believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not
aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. <br><br>
Alan<br>
<hr>
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged
information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the
information.<br><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>