Dear Marc,Yes: You are of course still a good soul.I think we simply have to present to the other souls out there in the community these two interpretations of public interest (this WG would have to hone the language of the two interpretations). Then we let the community decide. This is a question too fundamental and the both interpretations are too far apart. Plus we don't have a "fallback position"; but a mandate by the board to clarify the issue so guidance is established for the next round.Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Date: 7/20/20 00:33 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander@schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Alex,This is where we differ. I don’t think a beauty company being awarded .makeup then posting only blogs, vlogs, fanpages, stores and whatnot on domain names in the TLD that sell the company's brands is abuse or against the public interest in the same way that I don’t think it’s a problem for that same company to own https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://makeup.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TW52pKVXHDy3qDM...  and post the same content on subdomains.  It all comes down to what you think the public interest is.  You appear to think that only the maxiumum availability of all second level domains to potential registrants is the public interest or is of the highest public interest. I disagree and believe that the availability of TLDs to those who want to apply for them and the ability of the TLD operator that is granted the TLD to operate its TLD in the way that it chooses so long as it is not in violation of the law or third party rights is in the public interest. I also think that this will result in greater utilization of new TLDs - which appears to be an issue close to your heart – albeit utilization that is different than we have traditionally seen, i.e., use of domain names for things other than content or email, such as allocation and assignment to medical or other devices. This will be real innovation and competition.Furthermore, as you previously pointed out, Section 1.2 (b)(iv) of the bylaws states that one of the commitments and core values is: “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…” I note that it doesn’t specify second level names and that allowing a company to operate a closed generic arguably does promote competition in the sense that it is promoting competition in the establishment and operation of top level domain names, the availability of which will be virtually unlimited as almost any string can be applied for as a TLD subject to some limited restrictions.Hopefully you still think I am a good soul!Best regards,Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac@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 Alexander SchubertSent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 4:03 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Hi Marc,Well the hallmark and definition of closed generics is: singular registrant. So just one registrant may register domains - vs. many could do in an open TLD.Regarding quality and public interest:There might be positive use cases.But what if companies claim generic term based gTLDs that describe their goods/services - then use the namespace to only promote their own brands? E.g. a beauty company snagging up .makeup then allowing only blogs, vlogs, fanpages, stores and whatnot that sell the company's brands? That's arguably not in the public interest and doesn't promote competition.I think we need a mechanism that easily prevents such abuse. What about a public comment period?AlexanderSent from my Samsung device-------- Original message --------From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.comDate: 7/19/20 22:53 (GMT+02:00)To: alexander@schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Another question is whether just the program in general must be in the public interest or whether every single aspect does.  If every aspect then arguably every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must be in the public interest and justified as such.  I think the latter doesn’t make much sense and is not manageable and that it is thus the former – that the program more generally must be in the public interest.  On this assumption I don’t think that every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must specifically be in the public interest and think the same for closed generics.  That said, I think there is also an argument that closed generics generally can be in the public interest and that they Introduce competition in the registration of domain names, albeit not in the traditional sense of just higher volumes of registrations but potentially in higher quality registrations.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac@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 Alexander SchubertSent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 5:16 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Dear Marc,Thank you very much. You are a good soul in bringing this up yourselves. Thank you.I went through the document (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/...>) running a search for “public interest” – and it came up 10 times. For us probably most imperative (all caps by the original author):Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES(b) CORE VALUES(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;(iv) Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;Especially Section 1.2 (b)(iv): “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…”I guess that’s what the new gTLD program was about: “Introducing …..  competition in the registration of domain names”. That’s the new gTLD program mission. It says that such introduction of competition should be done where it is beneficial to the public interest.Hence my lamenting since days: Let’s define how this binds the new gTLD program to a public interest goal: and what that exactly means. Is this clarification a task this group would be authorized to do? Or would that be the GNSO Council? Board? I think it would be strange if a legislative body provides itself with marching orders. And the guiding we need is: is a public interest goal included in our marching orders (obviously not explicitly – but probably implicitly). If the bylaws are the constitution then we almost need a Supreme Court Decision. Who within ICANN acts as the Supreme Court? Or is that analogy inappropriate?And Marc: thanks again. Very good spirit.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com]Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:14 PMTo: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I probably should have checked the bylaws more closely before hitting send but at least I am doing so now.  I see that public interest is included in the bylaws in particular in Section 1.2(b).  So I guess the real question is what is in the public interest and how is this ascertained – i.e. if things in the new gTLD program (or the program itself generally) must be in the public interest, what does that mean?   think it should be more evidence-based than theoretical and opinion-based but I guess that is up for debate.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech)Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:46 AMTo: 'alexander@schubert.berlin' <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Alex or somebody please point me to where in ICANN’s mission or bylaws or other Board decision it says that the new gTLD program must be in the public interest.  I am not aware of any formal reference to this other than from the GAC specifically in reference to closed generics.  If this public interest mandate you keep raising doesn’t exist anywhere else than creating it is far outside the scope of this group and we should shut off discussion on it except with regard to closed generics so that it cannot keep being introduced as an obstacle to progress.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac@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 Alexander SchubertSent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:52 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6*EXTERNAL TO GT*Dear WG,While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially).Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections.Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”?Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Kathy,I disagree.  IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section.  That has always been the case.It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years.  This is not something I have created with my pen.  I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with.[cid:image003.png@01D65DDB.67061080]Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6hN... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdYVb5X6fEUegkkO6eeVn787G_19wP_XlQk6QKYAdw2Yu0bwdrUo0l9s-0HI$>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen.  I object- this was not the agreement.Best, Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I don’t understand your concern Kathy.  All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment.  I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced).Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application.  After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application.  Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC.What’s wrong with that?Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6hN... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdYVb5X6fEUegkkO6eeVn787G_19wP_XlQk6QKYAdw2Yu0bwdrUo0l9s-0HI$>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6<< or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>>Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier.  We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc.  It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires."  The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission.I strongly object to this line.Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts.  1.  The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states:  “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.”  Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4).  It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist.  1.  Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list.  Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change.Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6hN... <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXdYVb5X6fEUegkkO6eeVn787G_19wP_XlQk6QKYAdw2Yu0bwdrUo0l9s-0HI$>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, AnneSent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6No – that’s the issue I am raising.  All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section.  Those sections talk about “objections”.  I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection.  If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment.  If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that.I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document.  We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section.  We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed.  If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment  If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneAnd I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No?JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jamie,I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below.  I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment.It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection.  My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just  formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment.Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency.Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again.Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants.In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming.There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint.As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoringHopefully that clarifies.JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue.  If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.”  In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment.  A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter@spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines.I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants.JamieFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM