[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Karla,

You have the question correct. It is my representation that at the Brussels
meeting, during a GNSO Council session, I a had a side-conversation with
Kurt. In this brief exchange I pointed out that there was a risk that the
".brands" advocates in the Vertical Integration Working Group were going
to piggyback brands on the exception then under discussion for linguistic
and cultural registries, and registries that failed to obtain registrars.

It is my recollection that in response to the observation that there was
no ".brand" type of application, the brand holder's gambit of attaching
their complete avoidance of policy development to linguistic and cultural
TLDs and the proposal to provide an exception from structural separation
for these community applications, simply would not happen.

I reprepresent that I recall Kurt saying to me, in this very specific and
intimate momentary context, "That will never happen."

I'd like clarification.

Did a "brand" application type get added to the "generic" and "community"
application types?

J. Scott Evans' and Anne Aikman-Scalese's public comments find, in the
language of support for appliants from underdeveloped economies, and for
linguistic, cultural and regional diversity, a basis to claim that ICANN
should fund brand holders, as applicants, and as objectors. How they do
so is a creative reading skill I don't seek to acquire.

I would like to know if brand owners are as free to hijack the applicant 
support program, and its funding, as they represent they have been in
hijacking the new gTLD policy development process -- which never had a
day's discussion of policy development for brands as types of gTLD
registries.

I think the JAS WG will ignore them, but that doesn't seem to have worked
for the DAG, if the .brand promoters are to be taken at face value.

Thanks in advance, and I hope you've a nice weekend.

Eric