Thanks Jeff. I like that better. Now for the additional question not yet answered which is I was under the impression we were going to have another round of discussion on calls about so-called Closed Generics. Is that not so? If it is so, why are we doing this (highly controversial) “can’t live with” exercise now? I know you and Cheryl don’t want to prematurely cut off discussion, but I’m not sure how else to view this. If I am wrong and there will be no more discussion on so-called Closed Generics, can you please post that to the list ASAP (keeping in mind the clock you guys wound up is ticking). Thanks! Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:40 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Jeff & Cheryl- an urgent reply would be appreciated / RE: Package 6 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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:37 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@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@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:41 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@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@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=73a5ab91683433f1e...] 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.