Alex, Who was speculating about the GAC’s position? The GAC’s position was always that there should be a public interest requirement for closed generics which is why the Board punted on it in the first round in the first place. Our position is that we don’t necessarily have to follow the GAC’s position as they don’t make policy. Nothing has changed. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 11:24 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report *EXTERNAL TO GT* Close attention should be provided to this here: Quote from the GAC: In this sense, the GAC, recognizing that the PDP WG has not been able to agree on how to treat closed generic TLD applications in future rounds, has taken note of the three proposals submitted by individual/small groups of PDP WG Members: ● A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs), submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky, and Greg Shatan ● The Case for Delegating Closed Generics, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. ● Closed Generics Proposal, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity. Regarding these proposals, the GAC is not in a position to support “The Case for Delegating Closed Generics”, which would allow all closed generics being delegated ….. So while we speculated about GAC’s current position for quite a while, I think now we have clarity. GAC also makes it quite clear that a “public interest goal” is existing – and the extension of the DNS is expected to meet it. Thanks, GAC. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2020 19:02 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report Dear Cheryl and Jeff, On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find docx and pdf copies of the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the “GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report” (see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-g... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gt...>). Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
