For some reason, my reply all sometimes fails to copy the list.  See below.

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

Marc,

There is no consensus on criteria for judging when a closed generic will serve the public interest and Leadership does not see the WG reaching such a Consensus at this time.  Many are dead set against Closed Generics period, the end and others have not provided convincing cases showing a demonstrated public interest.  So there is no WG Consensus.  To some, that means it’s a “free-for-all” and they may be prepared to sue ICANN to prove their Closed Generic application does, in fact, serve a public interest.  Some WG members end up saying “The Board will have to decide” while as to other issues, they say “The Board can’t make policy, only the GNSO makes policy”.

 

Given there is no policy consensus, I think we should affirm the three points below.  If nothing else, this would protect the Board (somewhat) from having to bear the litigation risk of our WG not having achieved consensus on a new policy.  This solution may “split the baby” but at least it doesn’t prevent the Closed Generic applications and it doesn’t force the Board to make the policy.

 

The Working Group affirms the Board’s action and recommends that in the event Closed Generic applications are received in the next round, then ICANN should allow applicants to

 

(1) make a change to non-exclusive access,

(2) maintain & defer until policy on serving a public interest is finalized, or

(3) withdraw

 

Anne

 

 

It doesn’t kick the can down the road – it decides now that closed generics are banned unless and until the policy on serving a public interest is created.  I disagree with this approach and believe that others do as well.

 

 

 

Why not just solve the puzzle instead?  The recommendation you propose just kicks the can again.  I think we can do it! (but we do have to get the “ban” language out – it just isn’t what happened).

 

 

Why don’t we just affirm the Board’s action and recommend that in the event Closed Generic applications are received, then ICANN should allow applicants to

 

(1) make a change to non-exclusive access,

(2) maintain & defer until policy on serving a public interest is finalized, or

(3) withdraw

 

Then there is an actual recommendation from the WG as to the next round.

Anne

 

 

+1 to Paul.  Everyone does not agree with that position.

 

 

 

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 / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com

Taft Bio

Taft vCard

Subscribe to our law updates

 

 

 

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's 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.

 

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.

 

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.