<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)"><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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Allan,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Your assertion has merit. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>One could also argue that the new gTLD program goal is to “serve the public interest” – and the board might wanted to remind everybody about that fact by slipping in the addition “serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br>I have a question for those who support the notion of private gTLDs:<br>Assuming we allow closed generics; would they be subject to anything like Spec-13? We already have closed generics (actually a truckload of them: .apple, .mango, .orange just to name a few fruits), but as of now they had to commit to Spec 13. Would the operators of a closed generic have to subject themselves to some Spec-X as well? Mark? Kurt? Mike? What is your stance on this?<br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><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'> Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 21:20<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"<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><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<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>