[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Mon Apr 28 22:16:32 UTC 2014

All,

It appears that Jeff Neuman has not been unsubscribed from the Council
mailing list and so has been able to inadvertently post to the list.

Regardless of the technical cause, it should not have happened and Jeff has
asked me to convey his apologies.

Jonathan

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us] 
Sent: 28 April 2014 02:10
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; 'Bret Fausett'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

I view this as no more inconsistent than the Board being inconsistent with
GNSO recommendations 9 and 10 which state:

9  There must be a clear and pre-published application process using
objective and measurable criteria.

10  There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of
the application process.

During the gTLD implementation process, it became apparent that some of the
objective and measurable criteria needed to be changed due to things like
Early Warnings, GAC advice, String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights
Objections, the Independent Objector, etc.  All of these things were changed
/ modified and in a lot of cases ADDED after the final approval of the GNSO
Recommendations.  And the Base contract...geez that was not even finalized
until ..well January 15th of this year (after many people signed the
contract).    And who can forget the amendment process which was COMPLETELY
changed MONTHS after applications had already been submitted and the lottery
held.  Or how about the IOC.Red Cross and IGO fiasco.

The point is that where justified, and where circumstances have changed, we
have tolerated inconsistencies especially where they make sense.  This is
one of those areas.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 

Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman at neustar.biz  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz

From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Organization: Afilias
Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Date: Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 6:19 PM
To: 'Bret Fausett' <bret at nic.sexy>, GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

Thanks Bret,

I agree, this needs careful thought as to how we both deal with the question
as posed to us AND navigate the underlying issue in a way that is as
constructive as possible .

Jonathan

From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret at nic.sexy] 
Sent: 26 April 2014 15:55
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/
new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r
=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B
9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=0a95df6bc664108a52fe602ce2beed152a58e9c0665
2655d3d27d677493f20ee>  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 <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilia
s.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD
3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7
dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>
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>
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 < <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de> rickert at anwaelte.de>

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

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

An:
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilia
s.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD
3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7
dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>
jrobinson at afilias.info

Kopie: GNSO Council List < <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
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 <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilia
s.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD
3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7
dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>
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
- - - - - 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140428/f40d6903/attachment.html>