<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
All,
I have continued to give this some thought and follow-up. You will see that an
initial discussion is now scheduled for our council meeting next week.
This is part of a timetable we need to be aware of which seems to me to be as
follows:
1. 28 March 2014 - Publication date of minutes of NGPC
a. Refers the issue to the GNSO Council and
b. Sets clock to start regarding 45 days
2. 10 April 2014 - GNSO Council Meeting
a. Become as well-briefed as possible and
b. Ask initial questions / have the discussion to clarify the position
3. 10 April to 8 May 2014 - Inter-meeting period
a. Provides for any supplementary information gathering and
b. Discussion / further discussion in groups / constituencies and
c. Discussion on council list and (to work within the 45 days)
d. Drafting of a response
4. 28 April 2014 - Motion deadline for next GNSO meeting
5. 8 May 2014 - GNSO Meeting
a. Opportunity to conclude a position in time to meet 45 day deadline or
b. Agree to request an extension
6. 12 May 2014 - 45 day deadline
Recognising that by our 10 April meeting, you may not yet have had time to
become fully informed or consult within your groups, I suggest we focus that
discussion on establishing the background and facts.
The objective being to ensure that we are collectively and individually as
fully and uniformly informed as possible as we move forward to consult within
our respective groups. Following that, we can then go on to decide on the
appropriate response to the NGPC
I have spoken today to Martin Sutton, Chair of the Brand Registry Group and
Martin is willing to brief us at the meeting on 10th of April or, at least, to
be available to answer any questions regarding Specification 13.
In addition, is there any other information that could be helpful in ensuring
that Councillors are as well-informed as possible to move forward with this
issue?
I am mindful of Thomas’s point below where it is desirable for us to act
effectively and in a timely fashion.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 April 2014 18:33
To: <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Volker Greimann; Bruce Tonkin; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
All,
as a Council, we need to be responsive when we are asked and we should get back
to the Board with a substantive answer in time. We cannot complain about being
circumvented and not answer when we are asked.
In terms of how we do this: This might be a matter of implementation oversight,
so can we reach out to original WG members and tap their knowledge about the WG
deliberations at the time on this specific recommendation?
Thomas
=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0
> Am 01.04.2014 um 18:36 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" <
> <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> Volker,
>
> Good point to place this discussion in the context of the promotion of " ...
> competition, consumer choice and consumer trust ... " as a reference point.
>
> Also, to be aware that many (all?) of us may need time to sound out
> our respective groups / constituencies on the substance and processes
> relating to this issue.
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volker Greimann [ <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 April 2014 12:57
> To: <mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Bruce Tonkin';
> <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
> Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter
> clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting
> competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across
> all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict
> with Recommendation 19.
>
> While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter
> may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the
> GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained
> mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common
> position now, if achievable.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson:
>> All,
>>
>> As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
>> publication of this resolution to:
>>
>> (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
>>
>> or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
>> review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be
>> [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
>>
>> Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that
>> we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or
>> before 10 May
>> 2014:
>>
>> 1. To provide no advice and therefore:
>> To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
>> additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
>> GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
>> will
> prevail.
>>
>> 2. To provide advice and therefore:
>> (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
>> additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent
>> of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional
>> provision
> will prevail.
>> OR
>> (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
>> additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
>> GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
>> may
> NOT prevail.
>> OR
>> (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review,
>> including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
>>
>> N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case
>> of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
>>
>> In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
>>
>> Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
>> registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among
>> such accredited registrars."
>> See here:
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-ne>
>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-ne
>> w
>> -gtlds
>> -11sep07.pdf
>>
>> The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here:
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
>>
>> including the BRG's supporting statement here:
>> <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-0>
>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-0
>> 6
>> dec13-
>> en.pdf
>>
>> and the ICANN staff summary here:
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14
>> m
>> ar14-e
>> n.pdf
>>
>> Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide
>> advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a
>> Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually
>> Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Tonkin [ <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02
>> To: <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
>> Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
>>
>> From:
>> <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2
>> 6
>> mar14-
>> en.htm
>>
>> Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of
>> Applicants
>>
>> Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee
>> (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be
>> entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
>>
>> Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding
>> modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns
>> of their constituents.
>>
>> Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a
>> proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
> <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-pro>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-pro
> posed-
>> 06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would
>> provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that
>> qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
>>
>> Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the
>> public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a
>> registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN
>> accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in
> response to a comment submitted by a
>> group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised
> draft
>> was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014
>> ( <http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification->
>> http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-
>> 1
>> 3-publ
>> ic-comments/ ).
>>
>> Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the
>> group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above
>> during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the
>> inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD
>> to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
>>
>> Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in
>> the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
>> Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use
>> only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may
>> not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
>>
>> Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from
>> the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13
>> provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators
>> of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
>>
>> Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the
>> authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise
>> the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise
>> relating to the New gTLD Program.
>>
>> Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the
>> New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1
> ( <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-a>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-a
> nnex-1
>> -26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause
>> allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number
>> preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and
>> CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement
>> Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with
>> this
> resolution.
>>
>> Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of
>> the additional clause identified below into Specification 13.
>> Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
>> publication of this resolution
>> to:
>>
>> (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
>>
>> or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
>> review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
>>
>>
>> "The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is
> superseded
>> by the following:
>>
>> Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator
>> must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to
>> all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with
>> the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that
> Registry
>> Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to
>> register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper
>> functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN
>> accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive
>> registrar(s) for the TLD."
>>
>> A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to
>> incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation.
>> The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all
>> necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to
>> the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
> www.domaindiscount24.com /
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
> DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> <http://www.keydrive.lu> www.keydrive.lu
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
> bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
> setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
> <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
> www.domaindiscount24.com /
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> <http://www.keydrive.lu> www.keydrive.lu
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
> whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
> content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely
> on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected
> this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or
> contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|