<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Hi Avri,
spec 9 is the code of conduct, which includes its own exemption language
already. We are basically of the opinion that the exemption from Spec 9
is sufficient to achieve many, if not all, of the same goals this new
exemption is trying to achieve, but with less breaking of policy porcellain.
Volker
Am 08.05.2014 16:35, schrieb Avri Doria:
Hi,
Apologies, but I find myself still confused by Volker's ammendment as it
still allows for:
1. Registry Operator is exempt from complying with the requirements
of Specification 9 to the Agreement, notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 6 of Specification 9.
What does this exemption entail?
avri
On 08-May-14 10:17, Avri Doria wrote:
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> — — — — —
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|