<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Marc,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>You write:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><b><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>“Re your example of Saudi Arabia in my mind that would be unfortunate but acceptable as that is the way the system works. </span></i></b><b><i><span style='color:red'>Anyone who wants to pay the application fee can be awarded a TLD and they can either use it or not as they see fit or their means permit</span></i></b><b><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>And I think the Internet Community should have the right to decide exactly that fundamental question:<br><br>“Is the DNS for sale”?<br>“Is it OK when Saudi Arabia is buying up all Iranian Cityname based gTLDs – just to not use them”?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>“Is it OK when one company buys .book – only to never use it?”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>My interpretation of the 2007 PDP outcome is, that we precisely wanted to prevent that.<br><br>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Montag, 21. September 2020 03:43<br><b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Alex,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Your thoughts on Disney wanting .Disney vs wanting .film are just that – your thoughts. There is no basis for presuming that Disney’s use of .film will not be in the public interest while presuming that another applicant’s application for an open TLD <i>would </i>be in the public interest. Is it in the public interest that the company awarded .film as an open TLD can arbitrarily pull out all the good names, designate them as premium, and sell them at multiples of 100s or 1000s of times more than the standard registration price? I don’t think so. If a test for in the public interest is created – which clearly I do not think can be done practically – then it must be applied to all applications and (1) there should not be a presumption against closed generics, and (2) it should include whether the RO can have premium names / the ability to arbitrarily price specific domain names differently. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Re your example of Saudi Arabia in my mind that would be unfortunate but acceptable as that is the way the system works. Anyone who wants to pay the application fee can be awarded a TLD and they can either use it or not as they see fit or their means permit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Your statement that the DNS is not for sale sounds good but is not based in reality. The first round made clear that the DNS is for sale and the best names come at the highest prices. Similarly, the first round made clear that the DNS is not a public resource. It is a commodity that can be purchased by well-funded applicants who can use those commodities – or not - as they see fit.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Shareholder </span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> | </span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=185 height=30 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D69051.4B3B3350" alt="Greenberg Traurig"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 19, 2020 11:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Dear Mike,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Yes, of course!<br><br>If Disney needs .disney then the public interest is served as the consumer expects Disney at MickeyMouse.disney and “Disney” isn’t a generic term (especially not a category defining term, a group, etc) and nobody else has a vested interest in using .disney domains.<br><br>If Disney would need .film – as closed generic – that’s something else altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>What if Saudi Arabia would “buy” all city name gTLDs of Iranian cities (not stating that they will be used to be run as city gTLDs: hence no letters of non-objection needed)? Then never launch them? Just to “stick it to Iran”? In your mind that would be perfectly legal: Iran could have applied for them – they didn’t: Saudi Arabia spent a truckload of money: now it is their loot?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>“Public Interest” essentially includes to prevent “abuse” of the new gTLD program. If Saudi Arabia “bought” all Iranian city name based gTLDs – that would help only Saudi Arabia: hence not in the public interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The DNS is not “for sale”: it is a public resource. That stipulates that especially for city names, goods and services and many other terms the public should have access to domains. And often there is just one term. “book” for example: there is simply no other string that would ever serve half as good as .book. The English language just has no other word. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='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>From:</b> <a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a> [<a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Freitag, 18. September 2020 18:04<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Then whatever test is established should be applied to every application.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Shareholder </span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> | </span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=185 height=30 id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D69051.4B3B3350" alt="Greenberg Traurig"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 18, 2020 9:16 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Marc,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Well: I think it does apply to all new gTLDs. <br><br>One couldn’t go in and tell ICANN:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>“Look ICANN, we here at GOOGLE have a great deal: We will give you 100 Million USD – and you give us the right to all 3 and 4 letter new gTLDs”. Just as an example.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='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>From:</b> <a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a> [<a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 17. September 2020 18:53<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Alex,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First, I don’t agree with your interpretation of the language and what “issue” refers to and whether or not closed generics were singled out. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Second, I don’t think you answered my question: If the public interest requirement is so important and everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest then why shouldn’t this requirement and test apply to <b><u>ALL</u></b> new gTLDs? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Shareholder </span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> | </span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=185 height=30 id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D69051.4B3B3350" alt="Greenberg Traurig"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:21 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<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><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Mark,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I understand what you say; and it's interesting.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Let me start with the notion why exclusive use registries have (per your assertion) seemingly been singled out:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I don't think they were singled out at all. GAC should be lauded for having taken upon themselves the Hercules task of sifting through all applications - and they flagged quite a few. Among those flagged was only one group that stood out as conglomerate of applications with similar specs: closed generics. They are all closed; a great common identifier. In order to avoid havoc in the next new gTLD rounds the board relayed to the GNSO that policy advice is missing. The message is essentially:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"If you force us we will flag all those again in the next round; then we decide the fate of these strings: better if the community would agree on policy advice; so please do your job this time". Which we still haven't.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So no singling out of closed generics by GAC or Board. In my mind.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In regards to the semantics of the board resolution ("issue"):<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"..... 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."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>First I recognize that I am not a native (American) English speaker. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"The issue" could be tied to "exclusive registry access" - with "generic strings serving a public interest goal" specifying the object such access is sought for. If the "public interest goal" was a given; then they could have left the "serving a public interest goal" portion away one might note. But the board was likely aware that not everybody knew about the public interest goal; so presumably they wanted to slip that in for reference.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You however seem to suggest that "the issue" was tied to "serving a public interest goal". That would reduce their concerns to the simple question: does the registry have to operate a string in a way that serves the public interest in some way form or shape?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But clearly that wouldn't cover all concerns they had. Imagine a product/service related string; e.g. .scooter. Even if the GNSO would declare that the operation of .scooter doesn't have to serve a public interest goal; there would be still other concerns. E.g. BIRD (a leading U.S. scooter share app) operating .scooter solely for their products: that might create issues beyond "public interest". E.g. competition issues.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So I don't think the semantic interpretation that the board tied "the issue" to "serving a public interest goal" holds water. In my mind they demanded to create policy how the exclusive registry access for closed generics will be governed. That any such policy has to follow the new gTLD program goals (among which is "public interest) is a given in my mind. That to decide would be beyond our scope: it was decided a long time ago.<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>Comments from others?<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="composer_signature"><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt;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: <a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com</a> <br>Date: 9/16/20 23:37 (GMT+02:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>, <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <br>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Alex,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The Board is saying the specifically include the <b><u>issue</u></b> <span style='color:#444444;background:white'>of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work – so to consider and address this <b><u>issue</u></b>. If the Board had decided that exclusive registry access for generic strings MUST serve a public interest goal then they would have just said so and there would be no issue and nothing for the GNSO to address. The fact that the Board says “issue” makes clear that the matter is not decided. Merriam-Website defines “issue” as “a vital or unsettled matter” and “a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties” (</span><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/issue__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!W0WnhNJBlvS8XbMx-VKH9kiNTv7_ESdL0a-TNM_LJvavoi8iI3ep8E0m02EmXsA9-xFl-g$">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/issue</a>).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I would also add that Kurt, Mike and I feel like maybe our proposal is misunderstood. We are not arguing that closed generics do not necessarily need to be in the public interest. Indeed we think it is quite clear that everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest, per various specific provisions in the Articles and Bylaws saying just that. What we are saying is that closed generics should not be subject to a different public interest test than other new gTLDs. Rather, they ought be presumed or assumed to be in the public interest just as any other new gTLD is, and that any test to analyze whether they are/are not is fraught with subjective difficulties and so any decision would be challenged. Indeed, this is why they were allowed in the last round, ... until they suddenly weren't.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>To put it more simply, I will re-ask the question that I asked during the last numerous times verbally and in the chat and that <b><u>no one answered</u></b>: If the public interest requirement is so important and everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest then why are we singling out closed generics to have to meet a special test and be operated by not for profits? Assuming we need a special test/standards (which we don’t believe are practical for the reasons previously stated) shouldn’t this requirement and test apply to <b><u>ALL</u></b> new gTLDs? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br clear=all>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Shareholder </span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>Tel 312.456.1020 </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile 773.677.3305</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> | </span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=185 height=30 id="_x0000_i1028" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D69051.4B3B3350" alt="Greenberg Traurig"></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:20 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi Mark,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The original text from the board resolution seems to be:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>"..... <span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>the 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."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>It's not a request for consideration. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>The portion </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:white'>"</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>for generic strings serving a public interest goal" has not sprung from the fantasy of the board; it's enshrined in the new gTLD program goals</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>So how does the terminology "consider" fit in here? It's a clear request by that board. At least that is how I read it.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div id="composer_signature"><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.5pt;color:#364F67'>Sent from my Samsung device</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>> <br>Date: 9/16/20 21:35 (GMT+02:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>, <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <br>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Alan,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'><br>Shareholder </span><span style='color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>Tel 312.456.1020 </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'>Mobile 773.677.3305</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif'>trac@gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> | </span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359'>www.gtlaw.com</span></a><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=185 height=30 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D69051.4B3B3350" alt="Greenberg Traurig"></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">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 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='color:#0E0E3F'>*EXTERNAL TO GT*</span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;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='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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">postmaster@gtlaw.com</a>, and do not use or disseminate the information.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>