Thanks Alan. I want to draw your attention to the letter that Cheryl and I sent to the Board to clarify this very matter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/langdon-orr-neuman-to-b... More specifically, the letter states: "With respect to the issue of "closed generics", the Working Group has been unable to reach agreement on whether closed generics should be allowed, not allowed, or if allowed, under what conditions. We take note of the Board's July 27, 2015 letter to the GNSO where it states: As a result, the NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. The Working Group spent considerable time discussing whether this meant that the ICANN Board resolved that all future closed generics must serve a public interest goal if they were to be allowed, or whether it was just attempting to understand the GNSO's thoughts on closed generics in general. We would like to understand the Board's view on the topic of closed generics as it would help guide our future discussions. The Working Group has also published three recent proposals on the future treatment of Close Generics. Although none of these have been endorsed by the Working Group, we would like to understand whether any of these proposals at a high level are heading in a direction in line with the Board's views. Hopefully, we will get some clarification from the Board's response to our letter. [cid:image001.png@01D68C38.67546650] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:20 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for ?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan
