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

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Volker,
 
Your points are well-made, but the circumstances that led Recommendation 19 to 
be modified/clarified/excepted by Specification 13 suggest broader implications 
for all future PDP work.  Our back-and-forth on the list shows that when the 
policies are specifically prescriptive, it is easy to go astray once the 
real-world elements of the marketplace then test them.  But if we focus on 
outcomes, there is more latitude to act in the face of circumstance -- as long 
as the result is in line with our intent.
 
In the current case, for example, it was understood though not prescriptively 
stated that brand tlds were likely to be different players than most gtlds.  If 
the policy work acknowledged that and made it clear that those differences were 
to be accommodated within the framework of a set of rules governing registrar 
relationships, then whether the names were open to all comers or to a short 
list of, say, three, would not matter.  Only the nature of the relationship 
between the registry and registrars would. 
 
This is where I am on the question of 19/13.  Though I remain open to whatever 
amendments may be offered today, even without change the motion is a rational 
response that should be supported.
 
Cheers,
 
Berard
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on 
the Specification 13 question
From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 5/8/14 6:13 am
To: "Bret Fausett" <bret@xxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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. &bull; General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 &bull; Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
 310-496-5755 (T) &bull; 310-985-1351 (M) &bull; bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 - - - - -