[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text

Sat Jul 11 15:46:36 UTC 2020

Trust me, I understand the frustration. Perhaps more than anyone.
But we do not get to make up our own facts. The Board has acted, and
the GAC has acted. We must operate within those constraints. 
Best, Kathy 

----- Original Message -----
From: "McGrady Paul D." 
To:"Rubens Kuhl" , "Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg" 
Cc:
Sent:Sat, 11 Jul 2020 12:18:37 +0000
Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed
Generic Text

	+1 Rubens.  We can’t substitute the facts as they are with
Kathy’s view of how they should be.  

	I too am disappointed that this WG did not reach agreement on an
improvement to the status quo as the Board asked us to.  Some of us
tried by introducing thoughts on what a so-called closed generic in
the public interest would look like.  But, those ideas didn’t
stick.  Our failure to come to an agreement doesn’t make the fact
that we didn’t, somehow, “inaccurate.”  What happened,
happened, and editorializing about what that means is just another way
of trying to get an individual view of what the status quo is adopted
by this group.  We have been over and over and over this and I, very
kindly and respectfully, resist this latest attempt.

	Best,

	Paul

	To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [1].
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [2].

 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.

	FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg  ON BEHALF OF Rubens Kuhl
SENT: Friday, July 10, 2020 3:39 PM
TO: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg 
SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed
Generic Text

	On 10 Jul 2020, at 17:15, Kathy Kleiman  wrote:

	Hi Jeff,

	I'm sorry, but the language below is not accurate, and it must be. 
There is no way this group can agree to allow Closed Generics outside
the public interest framework required by the GAC in its Advice.
Further, absent our agreement (and the GNSO’s approval), we have not
meet the requirements of the Board's resolution on Closed Generics,
and the bar does not simply "time out."

	The group haven't agreed on anything, so... 

	I offer the language below as a substitution -- to accurately reflect
the two “Closed Generic” policy requirements before this WG and
the GNSO --  the 2015 Board Resolution AND the GAC Advice.  

	No Agreement: The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on a
policy that meets the GAC Advice requirements for “exclusive
registry access for generic strings serving a public interest
goal.”  In keeping with the requirements of the 2015 Board
resolution, as clarified in the Rationale, the GNSO must “inform the
Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue.”
It has not done so. 

	 _“The NGPC [ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee] is also
requesting 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. The President and CEO
should provide the GNSO with information needed to support this
request.”
_https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en
[4]

	Accordingly, in the absence of agreement by the Working Group on any
new policy consistent with the GAC advice on public interest goals,
the status quo is that Closed Generics would not be allowed in
subsequent rounds in line the Board’s resolution. The GNSO has not
formulated or approved a policy in accordance with the Board’s
wishes, as stated in the Rationale, and has not reported any progress
to the Board, as requested in the Rationale. Therefore, the Board’s
resolution holds until such a policy is formulated and formally
approved by the GNSO 

	It's already known that we can't agree on what the status quo is, so
retrying it one way or the other doesn't cut it. 

	Rubens

Links:
------
[1] https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe
[2]
https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit
[3] mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com
[4]
https://www.icannorg/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200711/f485526f/attachment.html>