[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Tony Holmes]

I agree, it's an important point that Avri has raised and I would also seek
clarity on that.

I'd also like to support the point that Volker made that we need a faster
way to resolve these issues in the future as we're bound by the
policy-making tools we have at our disposal.
Is that something we could refer to the SCI to look at?

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 08 May 2014 14:42
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question


Hi,

Would your amendments make Spec 13 a temporary measure to be
eliminated/modified if the PDP recommended it?  On first reading I did
not think so.   I think that might also be an important consideration.

avri

On 08-May-14 09:13, Volker Greimann wrote:
> 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> - - - - -
>>
>>
>