[council] Fwd: Question regarding discussions on Recommendation 19

[Thomas Rickert]

All,
this just came in from Kristina Rosette in response to my request for information.

Thank you and kind regards,
Thomas

> 
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> Apologies for the delayed reply.  It took some time to get my files from storage and I'm simultaneously preparing to leave for Hong Kong (in the next 30 minutes, in fact). 
> 
> My notes, as well as the transcripts I've located, suggest that there was very little discussion in connection with the new gTLD PDP regarding the non-discriminatory access provision.   More specifically:
> 
> 1.  There was far more discussion about the requirement that registries use only ICANN-accredited registrars (instead of non-accredited registrars);
> 2.  The non-discriminatory access provision seems to have first appeared in an ICANN staff report towards the end of the PDP (ie, less than 3 months before the GNSO Council voted on the policy recommendations);
> 3.  I located only one PDP meeting (can't really call it a WG in our current sense) that had any meaningful discussion of the non-discriminatory provision and that discussion was barely 10 pages of a 70+ page transcript;  and
> 4.  While it appears that there may have been extensive discussion between what is now the RySG and the RrSG about the non-discriminatory access provision, I was not privy to or invited to participate in those discussions.  (To my knowledge, that is also true of my now-CSG colleagues, but I defer to them.)
> 
> I have no record of participating in any discussion during the new gTLD PDP (that culminated in the September 2007 approval of the policy recommendations) of the potential exemptions that are referenced in the Whereas clause of the GNSO Council motion.  Accordingly, I do not agree with the characterization that the "lack of an exception cannot be seen as an unintended omission, but a deliberate policy statement."    Consequently, I view the Spec. 13 provision as more implementation, than policy (due to my conclusion that there was no deliberate policy statement).
> 
> I will have to go offline shortly for the first leg of my trip.    I do not know if my plane has wifi.  If so, I will do my best to respond to any questions you may have.  If it does not, I will be back online when I arrive in Chicago at about noon EDT.
> 
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Kristina 
> 
> Kristina Rosette
> Covington & Burling LLP
> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, DC  20004-2401
> voice:  202-662-5173
> direct fax:  202-778-5173
> main fax:  202-662-6291
> e-mail:  krosette at cov.com
> www.cov.com/krosette
> 
> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.  Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de] 
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:26 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Subject: Question regarding discussions on Recommendation 19
> 
> Hello Kristina,
> I am contacting you today as you have been involved at the time when the policy recommendations for the new gTLD Programme were developed and adopted. 
> 
> As you can see from the attached letter, the ICANN Board has reached out to the GNSO Council asking for advice with respect to Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement, in which it is requested that .brand registry operators can only nominate up to three exclusive registrars for registrations of domain names in their TLD. The question is whether this is an inconsistency with Recommendation 19 of the original GNSO policy recommendations (registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.). 
> 
> I have volunteered to reach out to you to help inform the Council's deliberations. I guess we would be interested in background information on the discussions on the subject of treating registrars in a non-discriminatory manner and potential exemptions as well as whether you think that this part of Specification 13 is a matter of policy or implementation.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140508/fb190452/signature.asc>