[council] Fwd: Question regarding discussions on Recommendation 19

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
this just came in from Kristina Rosette in response to my request for 
information.

Thank you and kind regards,
Thomas

> 
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> Apologies for the delayed reply.  It took some time to get my files from 
> storage and I'm simultaneously preparing to leave for Hong Kong (in the next 
> 30 minutes, in fact). 
> 
> My notes, as well as the transcripts I've located, suggest that there was 
> very little discussion in connection with the new gTLD PDP regarding the 
> non-discriminatory access provision.   More specifically:
> 
> 1.  There was far more discussion about the requirement that registries use 
> only ICANN-accredited registrars (instead of non-accredited registrars);
> 2.  The non-discriminatory access provision seems to have first appeared in 
> an ICANN staff report towards the end of the PDP (ie, less than 3 months 
> before the GNSO Council voted on the policy recommendations);
> 3.  I located only one PDP meeting (can't really call it a WG in our current 
> sense) that had any meaningful discussion of the non-discriminatory provision 
> and that discussion was barely 10 pages of a 70+ page transcript;  and
> 4.  While it appears that there may have been extensive discussion between 
> what is now the RySG and the RrSG about the non-discriminatory access 
> provision, I was not privy to or invited to participate in those discussions. 
>  (To my knowledge, that is also true of my now-CSG colleagues, but I defer to 
> them.)
> 
> I have no record of participating in any discussion during the new gTLD PDP 
> (that culminated in the September 2007 approval of the policy 
> recommendations) of the potential exemptions that are referenced in the 
> Whereas clause of the GNSO Council motion.  Accordingly, I do not agree with 
> the characterization that the "lack of an exception cannot be seen as an 
> unintended omission, but a deliberate policy statement."    Consequently, I 
> view the Spec. 13 provision as more implementation, than policy (due to my 
> conclusion that there was no deliberate policy statement).
> 
> I will have to go offline shortly for the first leg of my trip.    I do not 
> know if my plane has wifi.  If so, I will do my best to respond to any 
> questions you may have.  If it does not, I will be back online when I arrive 
> in Chicago at about noon EDT.
> 
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Kristina 
> 
> Kristina Rosette
> Covington & Burling LLP
> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, DC  20004-2401
> voice:  202-662-5173
> direct fax:  202-778-5173
> main fax:  202-662-6291
> e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx
> www.cov.com/krosette
> 
> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
> confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
> please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has 
> been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your 
> system.  Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:26 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Subject: Question regarding discussions on Recommendation 19
> 
> Hello Kristina,
> I am contacting you today as you have been involved at the time when the 
> policy recommendations for the new gTLD Programme were developed and adopted. 
> 
> As you can see from the attached letter, the ICANN Board has reached out to 
> the GNSO Council asking for advice with respect to Specification 13 to the 
> Registry Agreement, in which it is requested that .brand registry operators 
> can only nominate up to three exclusive registrars for registrations of 
> domain names in their TLD. The question is whether this is an inconsistency 
> with Recommendation 19 of the original GNSO policy recommendations 
> (registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain 
> names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.). 
> 
> I have volunteered to reach out to you to help inform the Council's 
> deliberations. I guess we would be interested in background information on 
> the discussions on the subject of treating registrars in a non-discriminatory 
> manner and potential exemptions as well as whether you think that this part 
> of Specification 13 is a matter of policy or implementation.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail