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

Tue Jun 30 20:16:45 UTC 2020

Thanks Kathy – I appreciate your point of view.  I too look forward to public comment.  Even so, we were promised more air time for this very important topic and now that additional time is being yanked back at the very last minute while in conjunction with the deployment of a “can’t live with” mechanism unique to this WG.  This is not the way this important topic should be handled.  Hopefully, the Co-chairs see the wisdom in giving this the airtime it was promised and deserved and I hope that kindly people, such as yourself, comes to that conversation open minded even if they don’t know what else can be said.

Best,
Paul

From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:07 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

Hi Paul, Anne, Jeff, and Cheryl,
This section of Package 6 reflects what Jeff and Cheryl shared with the GAC during the ICANN meeting: that the issue is going out for further public input and comment.

After extensive discussion, I'm not sure what else there is to say. This section tracks the extensive discussion of this WG over weeks, months and years.  We also discussed it extensively in May.  I look forward to hearing what people outside the WG have to share and guidance they might be able to give

Best, Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From:
"McGrady Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>

To:
"Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Cc:
"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Sent:
Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:36:39 +0000
Subject:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be appreciated / RE: Package 6

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<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:41 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>

Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200630/a9ffe26e/attachment-0001.html>