<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I agree Farzi, this is a very strange idea. For over half a
decade, two major PDPs have been rushed so that we could get to
more rounds of New gTLDs. Now we have to wait for a new PDP to
resolve one small issue - is it truly that they only gTLDs want is
the generic word of their business or industry. Is that what new
rounds of gTLDs are all about?</p>
<p>That's think hard about this...</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/6/2022 5:06 PM, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvA4aPxFWbrTPkdP0tk4SZNbB6oQjDnVSPLXxbTXJoRiNw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Dear all,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I find this letter from the Board chair to GNSO
council asking them to meet with GAC to come up with a framework
to address Closed Generic and then move it to a PDP quite
concerning. GAC is an advisory body! It is really not supposed
to get involved with policy development in this manner. Can our
councilors let us know what they think about this and how we can
prevent GAC from being even more empowered by the GNSO council? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best regards </div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
</pre>
</body>
</html>