<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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:<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> 1. that the <b><i>proposed </i></b>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;
<p> 2. that the Council does not object to the implementation of
Specification 13
<i><b>subject to the removal of the clause allowing a Registry </b></i><b><i>Operator
to designate up to three exclusive Registrars. </i></b></p>
<p> 3. that the Council requests the ICANN Board to implement
appropriate safeguards for
<i><b>this and </b></i>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;</p>
<p> 4. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy
development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy
affecting both existing and future TLDs,
<b><i>to assess whether </i></b><b><i>exceptions to
Recommendation 19 </i></b><b><i><b><i>or any subsequent
provisions
</i></b>should be allowable in this circumstance, and
under what criteria future requests would be considered. </i></b></p>
-----<br>
<br>
Changed/added language is marked in bold-cursive for easier
reference. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Volker Greimann<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 07.05.2014 17:21, schrieb Bret
Fausett:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:DD0A6CE8-FFAF-4CB8-BFBF-1DD4C7A451CD@nic.sexy"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
I see that the motion does not yet have a second, so I would like
to second the motion for tomorrow’s meeting.
<div><br>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">--<br>
Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. <br>
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA
90094-2536<br>
310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bret@uniregistry.com">bret@uniregistry.com</a><br>
— — — — — <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>