[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Volker Greimann]

Having reflected on the policy implications of the proposed motion, I 
would like to propose to  amend the resolved clauses of the motion to 
read as follows:

-----
  1.  that the */proposed /*right to only use up to three exclusive 
registrars, as contained in Specification 13 is inconsistent with 
Recommendation 19 as (i) the language of this recommendation of the 
final report of the GNSO does not stipulate any exceptions from the 
requirements to treat registrars in a non-discriminatory fashion and 
(ii) the GNSO new gTLDs Committee discussed potential exceptions at the 
time, but did not include them in its recommendations, which is why the 
lack of an exception cannot be seen as an unintended omission, but a 
deliberate policy statement;

  2.  that the Council does not object to the implementation of 
Specification 13 /*subject to the removal of the clause allowing a 
Registry */*/Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars. /*

  3. that the Council requests the ICANN Board to implement appropriate 
safeguards for /*this and */future new gTLD application rounds to ensure 
that Recommendation 19 is not eroded and that any rights granted to 
.BRAND TLDs cannot be used for scenarios other than those specifically 
covered by Specification 13;

  4. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy 
development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy affecting 
both existing and future TLDs, */to assess whether /**/exceptions to 
Recommendation 19 /**/*/or any subsequent provisions /*should be 
allowable in this circumstance, and under what criteria future requests 
would be considered. /*

-----

Changed/added language is marked in bold-cursive for easier reference.

The amendments take into consideration the various concerns voiced by 
many individuals including myself on the council list in the past weeks. 
The amended motion would clarify the policy position of the council 
while at the same time creating a way forward for the community to find 
a practical solution. It avoids the hollowing-out of policy 
recommendations at the request of any one interest but offers a 
constructive path to address any concerns with the existing policy 
recommendation.

Best regards,

Volker Greimann



Am 07.05.2014 17:21, schrieb Bret Fausett:
> I see that the motion does not yet have a second, so I would like to 
> second the motion for tomorrow’s meeting.
>
> --
> 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 
> <mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>
> — — — — —
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140508/17072a5f/attachment.html>