[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Mon Apr 28 22:13:36 UTC 2014

Brian,

Interesting points / questions.  

Notwithstanding the detail on these, my understanding of Thomas’s proposed motion is that, should the Council pass the motion as drafted, Specification 13 (including the additional clause) will become available to .BRAND TLDs and therefore .BRANDS will achieve the comfort they seek.

Jonathan

From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [mailto:brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com] 
Sent: 28 April 2014 22:53
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Dear James and Volker:

Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based your comments below:

·         The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars should be permitted;

·         Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers; 

·         Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred registrars; and

·         Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants.  

Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG position correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some important nuances.  

First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand registries will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar selection purposes, whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits Affiliates and Trademark Licensees to register names as well, thus complicating matters a bit.  Second, the RrSG position seems to encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among registrars using registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side agreements among Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own peril.  Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety of these indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands would be much more comfortable with the direct and formal provision in the Registry Agreement that is presently under consideration by the Council.  As I understand it, that is why the provision is necessary in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be alleged to violate the Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two preferred corporate registrars.  

I look forward to your responsive feedback.

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt 
Head of Internet Practice
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244
brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com / www.kattenlaw.com <http://www.kattenlaw.com/> 

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

*	To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett <bret at xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
*	Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question 
*	From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at xxxxxxxxxxx> 
*	Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000 
*	Accept-language: en-US 
*	In-reply-to: <535E1AA3.6090807 at key-systems.net <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html> > 
*	List-id: council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
*	Sender: owner-council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
*	Thread-index: Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A 
*	Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question 

  _____  

Just to add to Volker¹s comments:

Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided
feedback from diverse viewpoints.  But on the narrow question--whether
Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not.

We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the
domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other
TLDs.  For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed
restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that
was formerly part of a dot-BRAND.  However, we do not agree with the
assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among
ICANN-accredited registrars.

In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being
beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that,
as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to
execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider
under existing ICANN policy.  Additionally, to address concerns about
³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that,
as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any
registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to
include this language in the Registry Agreement.  In fact, this concern is
only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends
registrations to unaffiliated third parties.

In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is
compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and
that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new
category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy.

Thanks‹

J.

From:  Volker Greimann <vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08
To:  Bret Fausett <bret at xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List
<council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

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.²

Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such
accredited registrars.²
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
³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation
19.² 

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.

Let¹s 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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ 

On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert at xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

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.

Let¹s 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.

Let¹s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

From: Thomas
 Rickert [mailto:rickert at xxxxxxxxxxx]
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 xxxxxxxxxxx>

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

Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58
 MESZ

An: jrobinson at xxxxxxxxxxxx

Kopie: GNSO Council List <council at xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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 xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

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.       Š
 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 (Š with the letter and intent Š).
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 ( Š with the letter and intent Š ).
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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-496-5755 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png310-985-1351 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ 

-- 
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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com
<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
<http://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 <http://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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com
<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
<http://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 <http://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.

  _____  

*	References: 

*	 <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html> Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question 

*	From: Volker Greimann

  _____  

 <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html> <<< Chronological Index <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074>  >>>  <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html> <<< Thread Index <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074>   <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html> >>> 

  _____  

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

===========================================================
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
===========================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or 
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original 
message without making any copies.
===========================================================
NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
===========================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140428/3842a0c5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140428/3842a0c5/image001.png>