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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, I understood it was the Code of Conduct, I am still not certain
what being a priori exempt from the Code of Conduct entails for the
.brands or why it is appropriate.

Thanks for helping with my confusion.

avri

On 08-May-14 10:49, Volker Greimann wrote:
> 
> 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> — — — — —
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>