Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Bret, all, thanks for your e-mail, Bret. That is much appreciated. You are not the first to see this as an inconsistency with policy recommendation 19. I think it was Alan, who was also at the table in 2007, who also stated that this scenario was not considered at the time. While we are waiting for more feedback, let's just work on the basis of the assumption that it is inconsistent and in fact think about what this means as you suggested. It would mean that this part of Spec. 13 would be in violation of the original policy recommendations and I guess the consequence would be that additional policy work would need to be done to address this. But: Is this policy work really required to achieve the goal of giving .BRAND TLDs sufficient protection (and I have not heard anyone who did not sympathize with the request as such)? I guess the answer is no. Let's think this through. 1. Registries can already ask for an exemption from the Registry Code of Conduct for exclusive use TLDs. Those, who qualify for this exemption would not need to base their choice of registrars on the requested clause of Spec. 13. However, I am sure there are many .BRAND TLDs that would not qualify as exclusive use TLDs, which is why they could not successfully ask for an exception. Interim result: This is only a partial solution at best. 2. All Registries, not only .BRANDs haver far-reaching opportunities to draft their policies. They can establish, eligibility requirements as to who can be a registrant, they can introduce validation requirements, they can ask for technical features that are non-standard and they can determine a pricing structure including payment of deposits to name just a few parameters. By using these tools, all Registries have the possibility to achieve exactly the goal of limiting the number of Registrars down to zero. I do not believe that a registrar would take the effort to be onboarded with a Registry knowing that there is not going to be any substantial business. I have not been able to identify reasons why this part of Spec. 13 is needed at all because of the above. A response could therefore be to state that: - The Council appreciates the request. - There is an inconsistency with Rec. 19 (at least identifies by some). - Fixing that would potentially require policy work. - The Council recommends not to grant the exception. - The Council believes that the new gTLD program provides tools for all applicants to achieve the result they wish by crafting their policies accordingly. - This solution would maintain equal treatment or Registrars and avoid granting exceptions that could potentially lead to gaming the system at a later stage. Certainly, we need to wait for more feedback to come in and that might change my suggested approach, but I guess there is an issue at least for some and by responding as I outlined, we could highlight that and yet be constructive. Thanks Thomas Am 26.04.2014 um 16:54 schrieb 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 > — — — — — > > > > Attachment:
signature.asc
|