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

["Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>]

As I told a group of postdocs the other day, we in academia prize "the best" 
solution, even if it takes a long time.  Industry and commerce reward "good 
enough" as soon as possible, due to first mover advantage.  I think this is the 
crux of the time/culture issue around the timescale issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 9:39 AM
To: 'Tony Holmes'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question


Thanks Tony,

Regarding your second point below, I agree on the need for speed at times.

My understanding is that developing this is "in scope" for the Policy & 
Implementation WG as opposed to the SCI.
It is something we have begun to refer to as "Policy Advice" or "Policy 
Guidance" and, as yet, do not have wholly satisfactory mechanisms to deal with 
it.
We can, of course, consult within the GNSO as we have attempted to do on this 
issue.

Jonathan



-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Holmes [mailto:tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 May 2014 15:22
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question


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> - - - - -
>>
>>
>