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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

I fully agree that there may be real-world adjustments to the original 
recommendation, provided proper process is followed. I do not feel 
comfortable with setting aside a recommendation without such process 
however.
Recommendation 19 as it reads today is perfectly clear with regard to 
its language and intent. The proposed limitation to registrar access 
currently left out of Spec 13 would be contrary to both, thus it is 
inconsistent. While a solution may be found through proper process, it 
is not our role to declare an inconsistency non-consequential. Therefore 
the motion needs to be amended.
Best,

Volker



Am 08.05.2014 16:08, schrieb 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. • 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>
>         — — — — —