Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on "closed generic" TLDs (link). This comment period closes 7-Mar.

Because there was not significant support for any of the straw poll options, the BC is not submitting a recommendation on closed generics. Instead, the attached comment documents prior BC positions and summarizes our recent discussion of this topic.

I will collect any final comments on this "non-comment" draft until midnight 5-Mar and then submit to ICANN on 7-Mar. In my view, there is no requirement for formal position voting since the BC is not taking a position on the question at issue.

Some background:

This issue was discussed on BC member call 12-Feb.

A straw poll was circulated to members on 17-Feb.

Summary of comments received after the straw poll:

Elisa Cooper (Mark Monitor) recused because of clients on both sides of the issue.

Phil Corwin (ICA) reported its members desired no position.

Barbara Wanner (USCIB) reported its members have no consensus.

Andy Abrams (Google) said it was inappropriate to create a class of "closed generics" when the proposed models vary so widely. Google also said it would be unfair to applicants if ICANN significantly changed the Guidebook rules at this time.

Ron Andruff and Mike Rodenbaugh differed on their recollection of how specifically this closed generic topic was covered in the vertical integration working group in 2009.

Mike Roberts pointed out the distinction between prospective and retrospective remedies for anti-competitive behavior.

Phil Corwin and Andy Abrams (Google) said that governments and regulators would enforce competition laws post-delegation, whether or not ICANN granted a TLD an exemption to the registry Code of Conduct.

Sarah Deutsch (Verizon) supported prospective resolution on this issue, and indicated support for dot-brands as closed TLDs.

Steve DelBianco

Executive Director

NetChoice

http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org

+1.202.420.7482