[council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question

[Volker Greimann]

Hi Avri,

spec 9 is the code of conduct, which includes its own exemption language 
already. We are basically of the opinion that the exemption from Spec 9 
is sufficient to achieve many, if not all, of the same goals this new 
exemption is trying to achieve, but with less breaking of policy porcellain.

Volker



Am 08.05.2014 16:35, schrieb Avri Doria:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies, but I find myself still confused by Volker's ammendment as it
> still allows for:
>
>> 1.	Registry Operator is exempt from complying with the requirements
>> of Specification 9 to the Agreement, notwithstanding the provisions
>> of Section 6 of Specification 9.
>>
> What does this exemption entail?
>
> avri
>
>
> On 08-May-14 10:17, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> On 08-May-14 09:51, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> as no policy exception would be required if both the amendment and
>>> the motion pass, there would not be a need for a temporary spec. I
>>> would be very cautious about allowing an exemption on a temporary
>>> basis as such temporary solutions have a tendency to solidify.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Volker
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 08.05.2014 15:41, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>>> 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> — — — — —
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>