<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
- From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:22:07 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1399558955; bh=w9xOEjxT5L43On+VmjlCRGynzAuP6bPlIfmAQmBDqOw=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer; b=CDXTefH2pyc/7uQMopygpYn5D1OS/FE0Kc7V2oIBYbUo+Gij/WKmdPO+6zbX0de7rVlk2ps4gfJecgFZzqSteMpbg1N6C2aRF6S+x+qoB5mX2tdj/bs8CdBrncsFTLrU26pXqXSHzrBCXGQPyYbz11jC7f0PEGhclGmNn16hdBY=
- In-reply-to: <536B899A.1070204@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <CF856A90.58CF0%jbladel@godaddy.com> <DD0A6CE8-FFAF-4CB8-BFBF-1DD4C7A451CD@nic.sexy> <536B8312.7030805@key-systems.net> <536B899A.1070204@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQDMxRWsKx70UyTZAV2UfTIP7H4WkQDdmW+EAjC/CpcCBhAY150TYipA
I agree, it's an important point that Avri has raised and I would also seek
clarity on that.
I'd also like to support the point that Volker made that we need a faster
way to resolve these issues in the future as we're bound by the
policy-making tools we have at our disposal.
Is that something we could refer to the SCI to look at?
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 08 May 2014 14:42
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
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> - - - - -
>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|