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

[Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>]

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 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
— — — — — 




On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <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>:
> 
>> 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>
>> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>> Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ
>> An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Kopie: GNSO Council List <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>:
>>  
>> 
>> 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
— — — — —