[council] FW: Specification 13 : Letter to the GNSO

[Volker Greimann]

Hello,

the registrars are also still not in favor. To enable us to move ahead, 
we will be providing possible amendment language later today.

The implications of "waving through" what essentially amounts to 
violations of standing policy recommendations should be carefully 
considered lest "backdooring" around the established processes to 
achieve the desired goals becomes the norm.

While there are certainly good arguments in favor of the basic intent of 
the proposed exemption in these specific circumstances we cannot ignore 
the process. I would also agree that maybe we need a faster way to 
resolve these issues in the future, currently we are bound by the 
policy-making tools we have at our disposal.

Best,

Volker


Am 08.05.2014 14:36, schrieb Avri Doria:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks you for this additional information.
>
> I am still inclined against this motion.  Some of my reasons.
>
> - I do not think it is necessary as the Registry can tailor its
> Regsitry-Registrar agreement to its specific needs.  That, especially
> when combined with the lack of restrictions on VI, means they would not
> be blocked from making registrations according to their specification.
> This is a practice that community gTLD and geographical gTLDs, another
> of the emergent categories, will need to follow.
>
> - I think the process needs to be followed.  It is perhaps unfortunate
> that ICANN or their ICANN experienced consultants did not better explain
> the ICANN consensus policy affect on contracts to the applicants, but
> their lack of understanding is not reason for abrogating the processes
> we are fighting hard to see maintained in other issues.  This BRG
> process has been going on for a while now, and we may have even been a
> good way through a PDP had the RySG (I am assuming they are part of the
> RySG, is that the case?) initiated a PDP process as soon as the problem
> became apparent.  So even if they could not have started 2 years ago,
> they might have 1 year ago.
>
> - This is not a simple tweak to the policies, It is not similar to
> 'just' adding additional names to an already existing reserved name
> list.  This overturns an essential principle of the relationship between
> registrars and registries - the non discrimination clause. The
> unintended long term consequences of this precedent needs to be
> understood. Again that is what a PDP is for.
>
> - I think that if this were an PDP we might find that the other emergent
> categories of new gTLD applicant might also benefit from carefully
> crafted exception processes.  For example I can imagine that
> geographical gTLDs mights want to focus on local registrars, and
> communities might want to focus on specific registrars - both of these
> categories also provide restricted registrations. I am sure that the
> idea that a Registry could pick 3 special registrars for their business,
> might be advantageous to other non-promiscuous gTLDs (i.e gTLDs that
> offer themselves to just any registrant).
>
> We also have to take into account that what we are trying to work around
> is an artificial boundary imposed by Staff without a prior policy
> process.  At what point did the GNSO decide that a registry would be
> limited in the number of registrations it could make on its own behalf.
>   That limit, a policy to be certain, was imposed by staff unilaterally.
>   During the original policy discussions we did discuss the notion of a
> membership based organization giving free registrations to its members.
> This was assumed to be possible, though we did not get into the
> registration models - another lesson about the need to defining the
> minutia of a policy. Why are not talking about removing the limit of
> registrations a registry can use for its own purposes.  It could solve
> the BRG problem and would possibly help other registries as well.  Again
> this is an issue that could have been reviewed if we had engaged in a
> proper PDP process on the issue of single user gTLDs - a topic we have
> known about since the VI discussions.  One can argue that this problem
> is not because of the Equal Treatment rule but because of an arbitrary
> limit set by staff.
>
> Rushing like this to satisfy an ICANN pressure group is something that
> we have to put a stop to, in my opinion.  I do not see how we can, as a
> council committed to protecting GNSO processes, approve this exception.
>   Recently we put the GAC request on IGO-INGO through PDP despite their
> strong reaction against it.   I do not understand how it is appropriate
> to give the BRG a policy process work-around we refused the GAC.  If
> nothing else we will be authorizing the Board to ignore the work of the
> PDP whenever convenient.
>
> The Board does have the ability to decide that this is a necessary
> Temporary Policy. If that were to have been the solution the Board had
> chosen we could then have an adequate process for resolving any of the
> issues related to this issue.  Unfortunately, as I understand it, that
> is not the path they took, nor the path we are recommending.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 08-May-14 04:09, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>> All,
>>
>>   
>>
>> Please see attached letter received today from the BRG.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>   
>>
>> Jonathan
>>