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

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Eric,

Thank you for your confirmation. The question was sent to Kurt.

Kind regards,

Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639  

-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 5:16 PM
To: Karla Valente
Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx

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