Just sharing the rest of the conversation with the WG.
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
| www.gtlaw.com
From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech)
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:58 PM
To: 'Aikman-Scalese, Anne' <AAikman@lrrc.com>; PMcGrady@taftlaw.com; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
Yes but there is only a single supplier of the goods or services – in this case domain names in that TLD - without any competitors, which is the definition of a monopoly. The registry operator is also able to set any price it wants and
to manipulate the market through premium domains. Each TLD is a monopoly in the truest sense.
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 |
www.gtlaw.com
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:53 PM
To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>;
PMcGrady@taftlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
Not at all since purchase is open to all comers who meet eligibility requirements and comply with the terms of the registrant agreement.
From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>;
PMcGrady@taftlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
[EXTERNAL]
Anne,
That’s fine with me as long as we also acknowledge that every newgTLD operator has a monopoly over the text of their TLD since they control the entire market for domain names in the TLD.
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 |
www.gtlaw.com
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:28 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;
langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
Paul,
Since you and Marc insist on using loaded words like “censorship”, how about if I say there are those in the Working Group who are opposed to “monopoly”. (In
other words, compare to the same reason you cannot get exclusive trademark rights to a generic term.)
;-)
Anne
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>;
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
[EXTERNAL]
Thanks Anne. It may end up in wasteful litigation, but the multi-stakeholder model is inherently inefficient. That is what keeps it from devolving into a top
down model or from being captured by one specific interest. I appreciate your desire to make ICANN efficient, but I’m not on board when the cost of that efficiency is censorship.
Best,
Paul
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:04 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>;
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
This is overall organizational effectiveness improvement 101. GNSO shouldn’t say “we are the policymakers” and then say “the Board will have to decide the
policy.”
I don’t agree that when GNSO fails to arrive at Consensus Policy on an important issue, the best solution is to let applicants “fight it out” with the ICANN
Board. That just costs ICANN (and therefore the Internet community” a bunch of time and money. It’s wasteful litigation.
Anne
From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:59 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>;
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
[EXTERNAL]
Thanks Anne. I don’t think it is our job to shelter the Board from litigation risk. That isn’t policy making. That is in-house GC’ing and this WG isn’t that.
Best,
Paul
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 11:57 AM
To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;
langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
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
From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:47 AM
To: PMcGrady@taftlaw.com; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;
langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
[EXTERNAL]
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.
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 |
www.gtlaw.com
From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;
langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
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).
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 11:29 AM
To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com;
langdonorr@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Package 6
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
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:44 PM
To: PMcGrady@taftlaw.com;
jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; langdonorr@gmail.com
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Package 6
[EXTERNAL]
+1 to Paul. Everyone does not agree with that position.
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 |
www.gtlaw.com
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:41 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Package 6
*EXTERNAL TO GT*
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
|
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.