ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 15:13:54 +0200
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1399554860; x=1400418860; bh=5t7J/selDBiw SMUF2L3N7OmzHOxdoGjUlMVkCbla1lw=; b=ZVRMcdR2E/Ezrix3qmv94r8HsvGe 86HiQAyBFGkPQjL7d/KajkeU0C7eMmyWJx0lqSHxB9ARUJMe3H1yXXI6xUQ+nwOk OXsN5LoY3XGb+Q3+KeljA9pOHA+4U+IYHdW3BqpzLYZgkvKjpPPJgySYc/E0aJRI g7Qc9vrLiGTkVbc=
  • In-reply-to: <DD0A6CE8-FFAF-4CB8-BFBF-1DD4C7A451CD@nic.sexy>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <CF856A90.58CF0%jbladel@godaddy.com> <DD0A6CE8-FFAF-4CB8-BFBF-1DD4C7A451CD@nic.sexy>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0

Having reflected on the policy implications of the proposed motion, I would like to propose to amend the resolved clauses of the motion to read as follows:

-----
1. that the */proposed /*right to only use up to three exclusive registrars, as contained in Specification 13 is inconsistent with Recommendation 19 as (i) the language of this recommendation of the final report of the GNSO does not stipulate any exceptions from the requirements to treat registrars in a non-discriminatory fashion and (ii) the GNSO new gTLDs Committee discussed potential exceptions at the time, but did not include them in its recommendations, which is why the lack of an exception cannot be seen as an unintended omission, but a deliberate policy statement;

2. that the Council does not object to the implementation of Specification 13 /*subject to the removal of the clause allowing a Registry */*/Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars. /*

3. that the Council requests the ICANN Board to implement appropriate safeguards for /*this and */future new gTLD application rounds to ensure that Recommendation 19 is not eroded and that any rights granted to .BRAND TLDs cannot be used for scenarios other than those specifically covered by Specification 13;

4. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy affecting both existing and future TLDs, */to assess whether /**/exceptions to Recommendation 19 /**/*/or any subsequent provisions /*should be allowable in this circumstance, and under what criteria future requests would be considered. /*

-----

Changed/added language is marked in bold-cursive for easier reference.

The amendments take into consideration the various concerns voiced by many individuals including myself on the council list in the past weeks. The amended motion would clarify the policy position of the council while at the same time creating a way forward for the community to find a practical solution. It avoids the hollowing-out of policy recommendations at the request of any one interest but offers a constructive path to address any concerns with the existing policy recommendation.

Best regards,

Volker Greimann



Am 07.05.2014 17:21, schrieb Bret Fausett:
I see that the motion does not yet have a second, so I would like to second the motion for tomorrow’s meeting.

--
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>
— — — — —





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>