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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Would your amendments make Spec 13 a temporary measure to be
eliminated/modified if the PDP recommended it?  On first reading I did
not think so.   I think that might also be an important consideration.

avri

On 08-May-14 09:13, Volker Greimann wrote:
> 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>
>> — — — — — 
>>
>>
>