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=2b8abf60503911b86...] 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.
+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<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 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 https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.taftlaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!U6HGrBUsfa... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WfZ003NwR5M...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?c... ] Taft Bio<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com__...> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com...> Subscribe to our law updates<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/taftlaw.com/news/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid...>. 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.
Agreed, there is no consensus that "closed generics", however defined, should be banned. It is certain that the Board did not ban them, nor could they. [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:44 PM Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+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
[image: Greenberg Traurig]
*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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WfZ003NwR5M...> * / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com
[image: https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=2b8abf60503911b86...]
[image: V-Card Icon]
Subscribe to our law updates <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/taftlaw.com/news/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>
To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid...> .
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Board could ban closed generics in 2012, but they decided to punt to us the decision. Now that we haven't reached a decision, we will be punting back to Board, which might allow them or not, at their discretion. We are not providing recommendation either way, so no outcome of the WG can be read as banning or allowing them. And it's fruitless to discuss which was the default in this case, since the Board couldn't care less about the WG rule on defaults. They will apply their own thinking to what is on the table, including GAC Advice, and make a decision. One that GNSO won't be able to challenge (5/6 majority) since we don't have any recommendation on it. Rubens
On 30 Jun 2020, at 00:17, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed, there is no consensus that "closed generics", however defined, should be banned. It is certain that the Board did not ban them, nor could they.
Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> phone: +1 (415) 738-8087
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:44 PM Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote: +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 <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>
<image001.jpg>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <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 <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] 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WfZ003NwR5M...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>
Taft Bio <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com__...>
Taft vCard <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com...>
Subscribe to our law updates <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/taftlaw.com/news/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...>
To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid...>.
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 <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Rubens. I agree, to a certain extent, it is fruitless to discuss what the default is. But, that is not what this draft report does. It reports, inaccurately, that there was a ban when there wasn’t by the clear language of the Board resolution. I can’t sign on to something that is historically inaccurate. It needs to be fixed to reflect history, not one side’s rhetorical position. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:51 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Package 6 Board could ban closed generics in 2012, but they decided to punt to us the decision. Now that we haven't reached a decision, we will be punting back to Board, which might allow them or not, at their discretion. We are not providing recommendation either way, so no outcome of the WG can be read as banning or allowing them. And it's fruitless to discuss which was the default in this case, since the Board couldn't care less about the WG rule on defaults. They will apply their own thinking to what is on the table, including GAC Advice, and make a decision. One that GNSO won't be able to challenge (5/6 majority) since we don't have any recommendation on it. Rubens On 30 Jun 2020, at 00:17, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Agreed, there is no consensus that "closed generics", however defined, should be banned. It is certain that the Board did not ban them, nor could they. [Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:44 PM Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote: +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<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<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<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] 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!WfZ003NwR5M...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=4d8920afa1265b35c...] Taft Bio<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com__...> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com...> Subscribe to our law updates<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/taftlaw.com/news/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid...>. 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<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
McGrady, Paul D. -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rubens Kuhl -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com