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

[Jeff Neuman]

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<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>
[https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=747d8606d89086fa31a5cf84abfbbf639bdbcc0bfe6c7140c0138fc9774d641b886b9aa0c6d11683f47057b6d5f3988e94a0818231199c14d6fdfe92692ed886cba1fe3d826783ee9a653dcca5732a24ad509dcbe02154dbdbb9334888f9d0fa0056]
Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>
[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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200630/bdd3396d/attachment-0001.html>