[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
Amr Elsadr
aelsadr at egyptig.org
Mon Apr 28 10:27:15 UTC 2014
Hi,
Apologies for getting back to you all this late in the discussion. There was a very brief discussion on the introduction of Specification 13 on the NCSG list a few weeks ago, but the NCSG has not reached any formal position on the matter.
The discussion that did take place is however pretty consistent with most of what has been said here. Although there is some sympathy with the substantive implications of Spec 13, it does seem for all intents and purposes inconsistent with policy recommendation 19 and the existing Registry Agreement (regarding registries’ requirement to not discriminate between ICANN accredited registrars).
Personally, I do have a question regarding Specification 9; the Registry Operator Code of Conduct. Specification 9 does have a similar requirement stating:
“1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD (each, a “Registry Related Party”), to:
a. directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; …,”
There is also a mechanism for registries to be granted exemptions from this point, specifically as an item in the code of conduct. Is this exemption meant to influence considerations on contractual requirements in the entire agreement? I’m honestly not sure what role Specification 9 is meant to play.
Finally…, if I understood correctly, during the last Council meeting, Alan made a point I personally find to be a pretty good one. If Specification 13 is consistent with previous policy recommendations, it would be unnecessary to introduce it at this point. The apparent need to introduce it now suggests that it is a policy that was either not considered during the process leading up to the GNSO recommendations, or actually inconsistent with the policy recommendations made. In either case (IMHO), I would support a position requiring the appropriate process be followed.
Thanks.
Amr
On Apr 28, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net> wrote:
> Dear council-members,
>
> after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language as well as with the spirit of the recommendation.
>
> The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The recommendation explicitly states that "Registries (...) may not discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed exemption.
>
> Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the result or can live with the result does not fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the lead in initiating this policy work.
>
> Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency.
>
> As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD policy committee at the time the Recommendation was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement to restrict registrar access to their TLDs by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not be permitted.
>
> In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern deals with a completely different problem. This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report.
>
> Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries can further eliminate the ability of registrars to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker Greimann
>
> Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett:
>> Feedback:
>>
>> What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains.”
>>
>> Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.” http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for any exceptions for brands.
>>
>> Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is “inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.”
>>
>> Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for .BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007.
>>
>> Let’s think about what this means.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> — — — — —
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan,
>>> I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the deadline.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59 UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you have and retain flexibility to modify (if necessary) as we receive further feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Let’s you and I talk on Monday.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de]
>>>> Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38
>>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>>> Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>> this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only received one response from the registrars so far.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover their respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to chime in and respond.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and kind regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
>>>> Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ
>>>> An: jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>> Kopie: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>> thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message.
>>>>
>>>> I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in time.
>>>>
>>>> Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, one response per group is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for your review.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems to me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner.
>>>>
>>>> This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to be submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting.
>>>>
>>>> We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to
>>>>
>>>> 1. … advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains;
>>>> or
>>>> 2. advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups / constituencies is therefore:
>>>>
>>>> Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19?
>>>> It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as possible along the following lines:
>>>>
>>>> · No. It is not inconsistent (… with the letter and intent …).
>>>> and
>>>> · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent.
>>>> and
>>>> · Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its response to the NGPC?
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> · Yes. It is inconsistent ( … with the letter and intent … ).
>>>> and
>>>> · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent.
>>>> and
>>>> · Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving this issue and in what time frame?
>>>>
>>>> Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the above. The timing is very tight.
>>>>
>>>> We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e. no, it is not inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the Council on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC.
>>>> Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with the consultation work.
>>>> Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done? Thomas?
>>>>
>>>> I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of providing a representative, timely and effective response.
>>>> I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the discussion to date. Please correct me if I have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> — — — — —
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140428/600e2774/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list