[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Volker Greimann]

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 at uniregistry.com
>>> <mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>
>>> — — — — —
>>>
>>>