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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you

On 08-May-14 09:51, Volker Greimann wrote:
> 
> 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>
>>>> — — — — —
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> 
>