Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I view this as no more inconsistent than the Board being inconsistent with GNSO 
recommendations 9 and 10 which state:


9  There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective 
and measurable criteria.

10  There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of 
the application process.

During the gTLD implementation process, it became apparent that some of the 
objective and measurable criteria needed to be changed due to things like Early 
Warnings, GAC advice, String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, the 
Independent Objector, etc.  All of these things were changed / modified and in 
a lot of cases ADDED after the final approval of the GNSO Recommendations.  And 
the Base contract…..geez that was not even finalized until ….well January 15th 
of this year (after many people signed the contract).    And who can forget the 
amendment process which was COMPLETELY changed MONTHS after applications had 
already been submitted and the lottery held.  Or how about the IOC.Red Cross 
and IGO fiasco.

The point is that where justified, and where circumstances have changed, we 
have tolerated inconsistencies especially where they make sense.  This is one 
of those areas.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Organization: Afilias
Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 6:19 PM
To: 'Bret Fausett' <bret@xxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Thanks Bret,

I agree, this needs careful thought as to how we both deal with the question as 
posed to us AND navigate the underlying issue in a way that is as constructive 
as possible .

Jonathan

From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 26 April 2014 15:55
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Feedback:

What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO 
Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter 
and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic 
Top-Level Domains.”

Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited 
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such 
accredited registrars.” 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=0a95df6bc664108a52fe602ce2beed152a58e9c06652655d3d27d677493f20ee>
 The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for any 
exceptions for brands.

Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is 
“inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.”

Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for .BRAND 
TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a specialized type of 
TLD that was not being considered carefully when Recommendation 19 was 
prepared. BUT, it is definitely inconsistent with the policy recommendation we 
made in August, 2007.

Let’s think about what this means.

--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • 
bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
— — — — —



On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert 
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Jonathan,
I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information to act 
on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the deadline.

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>>:


Thanks Thomas,

You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59 UTC so, 
assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday.

Let’s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you have and 
retain flexibility to modify (if necessary) as we receive further feedback.

Let’s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

All,
this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The motions 
and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only received one 
response from the registrars so far.

Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina 
Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs 
(Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover their 
respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information on the 
discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here 
- please to chime in and respond.

Thanks and kind regards,
Thomas

Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:

Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ
An: 
jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>
Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

All,
thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.

I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in 
time.

Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the 
list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, 
one response per group is sufficient.

If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let 
me know.

The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will 
take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for 
your review.

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson 
<jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>>:

All,

Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems to 
me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the question 
being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and effective 
manner.

This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to be 
submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014 
meeting.

We are being asked  (full letter attached for reference) to

1.       … advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this 
additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy 
Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains;
or
2.       advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, 
including an explanation as to why additional time is required.

I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups / 
constituencies  is therefore:

Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO 
Policy Recommendation 19?
It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as possible 
along the following lines:

·         No. It is not inconsistent (… with the letter and intent …).
and
·         Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.
and
·         Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in 
its response to the NGPC?

OR

·         Yes. It is inconsistent ( … with the letter and intent … ).
and
·         Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.
and
·         Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in 
resolving this issue and in what time frame?

Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the 
above.  The timing is very tight.

We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e. no, 
it is not inconsistent.

Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the Council 
on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC.
Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with 
the consultation work.
Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done?  
Thomas?

I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of 
providing a representative, timely and effective response.
I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the 
discussion to date.  Please correct me if I have.


Jonathan


--
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc.
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • 
bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
— — — — —