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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

as no policy exception would be required if both the amendment and the 
motion pass, there would not be a need for a temporary spec.
I would be very cautious about allowing an exemption on a temporary 
basis as such temporary solutions have a tendency to solidify.
Best,

Volker


Am 08.05.2014 15:41, schrieb Avri Doria:
> 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>
> > > — — — — —