<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi John,<br>
<br>
I fully agree that there may be real-world adjustments to the
original recommendation, provided proper process is followed. I do
not feel comfortable with setting aside a recommendation without
such process however. <br>
<br>
Recommendation 19 as it reads today is perfectly clear with regard
to its language and intent. The proposed limitation to registrar
access currently left out of Spec 13 would be contrary to both, thus
it is inconsistent. While a solution may be found through proper
process, it is not our role to declare an inconsistency
non-consequential. Therefore the motion needs to be amended.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Volker<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.05.2014 16:08, schrieb
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20140508070809.a9a203d782c20324abd21efa41e2a5a6.b24ecea2e1.mailapi@email14.secureserver.net"
type="cite">
<div>Volker,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your points are well-made, but the circumstances that led
Recommendation 19 to be modified/clarified/excepted by
Specification 13 suggest broader implications for all future PDP
work. Our back-and-forth on the list shows that when the
policies are specifically prescriptive, it is easy to go astray
once the real-world elements of the marketplace then test them.
But if we focus on outcomes, there is more latitude to act in
the face of circumstance -- as long as the result is in line
with our intent.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the current case, for example, it was understood though
not prescriptively stated that brand tlds were likely to be
different players than most gtlds. If the policy work
acknowledged that and made it clear that those differences were
to be accommodated within the framework of a set of rules
governing registrar relationships, then whether the names were
open to all comers or to a short list of, say, three, would not
matter. Only the nature of the relationship between the
registry and registrars would. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is where I am on the question of 19/13. Though I remain
open to whatever amendments may be offered today, even without
change the motion is a rational response that should be
supported.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Berard</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left: 2px solid
#C2C2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">---------
Original Message ---------
<div>Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification
13 question<br>
From: "Volker Greimann" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-Systems.net"><vgreimann@key-Systems.net></a><br>
Date: 5/8/14 6:13 am<br>
To: "Bret Fausett" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bret@nic.sexy"><bret@nic.sexy></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">"council@gnso.icann.org"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"><council@gnso.icann.org></a><br>
<br>
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><span> 1. that the <strong><em>proposed </em></strong>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;</span></span>
<p> 2. that the Council does not object to the implementation
of Specification 13 <em><strong>subject to the removal of
the clause allowing a Registry </strong></em><strong><em>Operator
to designate up to three exclusive Registrars. </em></strong></p>
<p> 3. that the Council requests the ICANN Board to implement
appropriate safeguards for <em><strong>this and </strong></em>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, <strong><em>to
assess whether </em></strong><strong><em>exceptions to
Recommendation 19 </em></strong><strong><em><strong><em>or
any subsequent provisions </em></strong>should be
allowable in this circumstance, and under what criteria
future requests would be considered. </em></strong></p>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">-----<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:</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DD0A6CE8-FFAF-4CB8-BFBF-1DD4C7A451CD@nic.sexy">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>
<div style="color: #000000; 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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>