[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be appreciated / RE: Package 6

Wed Jul 1 01:35:39 UTC 2020

I agree with Paul on this.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:00 PM McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jeff.  No, it doesn’t help because when we last spoke about this
> topic on the calls you specifically said that we would schedule more time
> for this topic.
>
>
>
>
>
> See
> https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/tJYkf7it-j03S4DH4gSDA6d7W9S0fK6shHUer6AMzUzgAHcEM1quY7sXM7OLa5zBPzCtOdYuHPk50nwl
>
>
>
> To now learn, with essentially zero time left on Package 6 that you and
> Cheryl have decided to shut down the conversation is very disturbing.  I
> implore you to excise the so-called “Closed Generics” from Package 6, have
> the additional phone call promised, and then let’s put it into a future
> package for review.   I simply see no upside to the co-chairs shutting down
> dialogue on this very important topic, especially using the highly
> controversial (and no where in the GNSO procedures) “can’t live with”
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> An urgent reply, since your clock is ticking, would be greatly
> appreciated.  In the event that you will not do so, this is my notice that
> I “cannot live with” Package 6 since the process for Closed Generics is
> warped (in fact, there appears to be no process, only an ad hoc mechanism
> that has been effectuated prior to discussion ending).  Thanks Jeff!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:01 PM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be
> appreciated / RE: Package 6
>
>
>
> Great on the language, I will file a “Can’t Live with Comment” to change
> that language.
>
>
>
> As far as whether this is a live topic, we will see the comments that we
> get back on this Cant Live with Exercise.  We have been through this topic
> so many times, and we have seen very little movement by the various sides.
> Leadership has made the assessment that we are unlikely to reach compromise
> on this subject and therefore we do not consider it a live issue.
>
>
>
> If, however, we are proven wrong when we discuss package 6, or the
> comments we get to the draft final report are not what we expect, then of
> course the topic can become live again.
>
>
> I hope that helps.
>
>
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:49 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be
> appreciated / RE: Package 6
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Thanks Jeff.  I like that better.  Now for the additional question not yet
> answered which is I was under the impression we were going to have another
> round of discussion on calls about so-called Closed Generics.  Is that not
> so?  If it is so, why are we doing this (highly controversial) “can’t live
> with” exercise now?  I know you and Cheryl don’t want to prematurely cut
> off discussion, but I’m not sure how else to view this.  If I am wrong and
> there will be no more discussion on so-called Closed Generics, can you
> please post that to the list ASAP (keeping in mind the clock you guys wound
> up is ticking).  Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:40 PM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be
> appreciated / RE: Package 6
>
>
>
> Thanks Paul.  Just to level set, the “Recommendation” states:
>
>
>
> *No Agreement:* The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New
> gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to effectively ban
> exclusive use / generic applications. It is the understanding of the
> Working Group that the ICANN Board intended that its decision to
> effectively ban Closed Generics applied only to the 2012 round and that it
> wanted the GNSO to engage in policy discussions regarding the treatment of
> such strings in subsequent rounds. Although the Working Group has had
> numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from
> the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee,
> the Working Group was not able to agree as to how to treat these
> applications in subsequent rounds.
>
>
>
> If it works better, we could state:
>
>
>
> *No Agreement:* The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New
> gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to require
> applicants for exclusive generic strings to either (a) “submit a change
> request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their
> application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic
> TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of
> the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to
> allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive
> generic TLD.” effectively ban exclusive use / generic applications. All
> applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b).  It is the
> understanding of the Working Group that the ICANN Board intended that its
> decision to effectively ban not allow Closed Generics to proceed in the
> 2012 round applied only to the 2012 round and that it wanted the GNSO to
> engage in policy discussions regarding the treatment of such strings in
> subsequent rounds. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions
> about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community,
> including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group
> was not able to agree as to how to treat these applications in subsequent
> rounds.
>
>
>
> We can make the corresponding changes in the rationale section.  Would
> this suffice?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *McGrady, Paul D.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:37 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <
> langdonorr at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be
> appreciated / RE: Package 6
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff and Cheryl,
>
>
>
> Your urgent reply on this question would be appreciated.  How are we
> supposed to do this “can’t live with exercise” when this is a live topic?
> To the extent that you do not remove so-called “closed generics” from
> Package 6, please take this as my notice that I cannot live with that
> section as written.  And, I believe I am not alone.  Can you please respond
> and let us know if you are leaving it in Package 6?  The clock you guys
> wound up is ticking.  Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2020 4:41 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <
> langdonorr at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Package 6
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff & Cheryl,
>
>
>
> I was under the impression that we were going to discuss Closed Generics
> again, but I see it is Package 6.  Is Closed Generics not on the agenda for
> upcoming calls?  If it is, how can we be doing the so-called “Can’t live
> with” exercise when the topic isn’t closed on the calls?
>
>
>
> Also, I see that the text indicates that the WG agrees the Board
> instituted a ban on them in the last round.  That is not what the Board
> resolution says – and in fact there was much discussion on the calls and
> chat about how “ban” does not apply.  There were three options:  (1) make a
> change to non-exclusive access, (2) maintain & defer to the next round, or
> (3) withdraw. Is there a way to make that section reflect the actual facts
> before we have to undertake the so-called “can’t live with” exercise? The
> way it is written now essentially takes the starting position of the part
> of the WG that wants to censor closed generics and implies everyone agrees
> with it. That isn’t the case.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *Taft *
> */ *
> *Paul* *D. McGrady* / Partner
> Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
> 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
> Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
> Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
> Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
> *www.taftlaw.com <http://www.taftlaw.com> */ PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
>
> *Taft Bio <http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>*
>
> [image: V-Card Icon]
>
> *Taft vCard <http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>*
>
>
> Subscribe to our law updates <http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here
> <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources,
> visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit
> <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>.
>
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
> attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
> recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
> received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200630/b644487c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200630/b644487c/image003-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200630/b644487c/image003-0003.jpg>