I’m commenting on the .Brand TLD Designation Application by Lifestyle Domain Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc., for the .FOOD gTLD, dated September 24, 2015. For over 100,000 domain names including the word “food” and over 3,000,000,000 websites which notion the term “food” no restrictions now exist or are demanded of most existing gTLDs or ccTLDs, giving a restriction on new gTLDs an inhibiting effect on new gTLDs’ ability to fairly compete. An artificial closure of the .food gTLD further inhibits the end‐user purpose of the new gTLD program. I think that .food should be operated in an open and unrestricted manner for the benefit of all users. Especially the food community stakeholders must recognize the net benefit of .food to the worldwide community and encourage expansion of the benefit, instead of allowing the closing of this great opportunity to the commercial benefit of a single merely unknown company. For this reason I have created a Facebook support group which more than 80 persons have signed up already who support my efforts to keep .food an open gTLD (https://www.facebook.com/fooddomainsforeveryone). Furthermore I believe that this request must not be approved and the application has to be deferred to the next gTLD round. 1. ICANN rules do not allow an exclusive use of .FOOD An applicant who wants to operate a TLD under Specification 13 must show that the gTLD matches his trademark and that the string is not a generic word, as clearly defined by ICANN: “… a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others.” Specification 13 also explicitly defines that a TLD applying for .BRAND Designation must not be “a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11)”. Both ICANN and the GAC have very clearly articulated that a generic string will not be allowed to be operated as an exclusive .BRAND gTLD. Any applicant for a generic word has to either withdraw his plans for exclusive use of the TLD or withdraw the application. A substantial number of affected and already approved gTLDs amended their application accordingly. Furthermore, an approval of a Specification 13 application would qualify as a violation of the Public Interest Commitments (PIC) in Specification 11, clauses 3.c and 3.d: “c. Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies. d. Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others.” By granting the request that Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. and its Affiliates may become sole registrants in the .FOOD gTLD, ICANN would act in violation of its contract and the agreement with the GAC. 2. A potential change from exclusive to a non-exclusive use Even if the applicant choose to file a change request for a non-exclusive use of .FOOD, this would constitute a clear-cut material change. For any material change to an application, such as amending an application from exclusive use to non-exclusive use, ICANN reserves the right to re-evaluate the application, according to the Applicant Guidebook, version 2012-06-04, section 1.2.7. The practical implications of a change of status of .FOOD from exclusive to non-exclusive would be significant in financial terms, since responses to questions 46 to 50 would be completely misleading, as the costs of operations of an exclusive TLD would be substantially less than the costs of operation of an non-exclusive TLD and thus all responses to the financial questions would be flawed and the Continuing Operations Instrument grossly inaccurate which clearly justifies a request for a re-evaluation by ICANN. Regards, Dirk Krischenowski Gustav-Mueller-Strasse 1, 10829 Berlin, Germany www.krischenowski.berlin 25 October 2016