Thanks Alexander. In this respect, I would favor being realistic about the standing GAC Advice on Closed Generics. One model suggests we should ignore the existence of that advice and hope that the Board votes to override it. I believe the better approach would be to further define the parameters of a proposed Public Interest Goal Closed Generic as a type of TLD. To reiterate in response to Marc Trachtenberg’s comments, the new gTLD program assumes that non-generic OPEN TLDs are already in the public interest because they promote competition. Generic closed TLDs raise an issue because they do not appear to meet the new gTLD program goal of meeting competition. Hopefully the WG can spend more time on the proposal that Jeff Neuman put forward – after public comment is received. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:24 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Close attention should be provided to this here: Quote from the GAC: In this sense, the GAC, recognizing that the PDP WG has not been able to agree on how to treat closed generic TLD applications in future rounds, has taken note of the three proposals submitted by individual/small groups of PDP WG Members: ● A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs), submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky, and Greg Shatan ● The Case for Delegating Closed Generics, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. ● Closed Generics Proposal, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity. Regarding these proposals, the GAC is not in a position to support “The Case for Delegating Closed Generics”, which would allow all closed generics being delegated ….. So while we speculated about GAC’s current position for quite a while, I think now we have clarity. GAC also makes it quite clear that a “public interest goal” is existing – and the extension of the DNS is expected to meet it. Thanks, GAC. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2020 19:02 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report Dear Cheryl and Jeff, On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find docx and pdf copies of the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the “GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report” (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-r...). Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ________________________________ 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.

Marc, Maybe just check all the policy stuff that was developed in favor of continuing rounds as reflected in the “Applications in Rounds” section of the Draft Final Report. Anne From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:40 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ But why does the new gTLDS program assume that non-generic open TLDs are already in the public interest because they promote competition? What is the basis for this? How exactly does an open TLD promote competition? What kind of competition are you referring to? Competition between/amongst whom? It seems to me that “competition” is just thrown around as an ideal or buzz word without any examination or definition of what it means. I would also argue that evidence from the first round in the form of the abuse of premium domain pricing, reserved names and other strategies that subvert competition demonstrates that there should not be an assumption that open TLDs promote competition or are in the public interest and that it is in fact the opposite. 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/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 11:31 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report *EXTERNAL TO GT* Thanks Alexander. In this respect, I would favor being realistic about the standing GAC Advice on Closed Generics. One model suggests we should ignore the existence of that advice and hope that the Board votes to override it. I believe the better approach would be to further define the parameters of a proposed Public Interest Goal Closed Generic as a type of TLD. To reiterate in response to Marc Trachtenberg’s comments, the new gTLD program assumes that non-generic OPEN TLDs are already in the public interest because they promote competition. Generic closed TLDs raise an issue because they do not appear to meet the new gTLD program goal of meeting competition. Hopefully the WG can spend more time on the proposal that Jeff Neuman put forward – after public comment is received. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:24 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Close attention should be provided to this here: Quote from the GAC: In this sense, the GAC, recognizing that the PDP WG has not been able to agree on how to treat closed generic TLD applications in future rounds, has taken note of the three proposals submitted by individual/small groups of PDP WG Members: ● A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs), submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky, and Greg Shatan ● The Case for Delegating Closed Generics, submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh. ● Closed Generics Proposal, submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity. Regarding these proposals, the GAC is not in a position to support “The Case for Delegating Closed Generics”, which would allow all closed generics being delegated ….. So while we speculated about GAC’s current position for quite a while, I think now we have clarity. GAC also makes it quite clear that a “public interest goal” is existing – and the extension of the DNS is expected to meet it. Thanks, GAC. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Dienstag, 29. September 2020 19:02 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report Dear Cheryl and Jeff, On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find docx and pdf copies of the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the “GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report” (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-report-2020-08-20-en<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-report-2020-08-20-en__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!VCEejP2jOu3x95fiHQ1FPbAdZtL1JBd8sRnWoa4J36Gr5F5YfGgtjeWsLcuAvaQ02Uc$>). Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.