May 2014 - council - lists.icann.org

FY15 Operating Plan & Budget - call for comments
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-08may14-en.htm FY15 Operating Plan & Budget 8 May 2014 Period opens - 8 May Period closes - 1 July Please post your comments here<mailto:comments-op-budget-fy15-08may14@icann.org> All submitted public comments can be viewed here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-op-budget-fy15-08may14/> Categories/tags: Operations-Finance; ICANN Board/Bylaws Purpose (brief): Join us in creating ICANN's annual operating plan and budget for FY15, which describes planned activities for the year ahead (from 1July 2014- 30 June 2015). These activities are based on ICANN's strategic objectives, fiscal year priorities and community input. The draft FY15 Operating Plan and Budget document will be posted for public comment from 8 May - 1 July. ICANN is seeking general feedback as well as feedback on the focus areas, objectives, goals, portfolios, projects and budget allocations. Your feedback is important to help ensure we have a clear roadmap for the year ahead. Next steps: ICANN will take into consideration the feedback received and respond as necessary, before submitting the draft document for Board consideration. Draft documents: * Draft FY15 Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-fy15-08may1…> [PDF, 1.95 MB]- this document provides an overview of the FY15 budget, and the Operating Plan consisting of descriptions for goals, objectives, portfolios and selected projects. * Draft FY15 Budget by portfolio and cost category [PDF<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-portfolio-f…> and Excel<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-portfolio-s…>]- use this document to view the breakdown of the categories of costs by portfolio. * Selected FY15 Projects by portfolio [PDF<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-portfolio-f…> and Excel<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-portfolio-s…>]: use this document to view a selection of projects that contribute to each portfolio. * FY15 SO/AC additional budget requests as approved by the Board [PDF<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/budget-requests-fy15-08may14-en.pdf> and Excel<http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/budget-requests-spreadsheet-fy15-0…>]. Staff contact: Xavier Calvez, CFO: controller(a)icann.org<mailto:controller@icann.org> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Working Groups for non PDP purposes
by Avri Doria May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Hi, I happen to be re-reading the GNSO Operating procedures in preparation for one of those newcomer webinars. Always good to have a refresher. I see nothing in it that prohibits us from creating a Working Group to resolve any issue we wish to resolve, even if it is not a PDP based Wg. So my question becomes, why don't we quickly charter WGs to resolve any of these interrupt issues. We can charter a group with a narrow question, a time limit and the resources to make a recommendation to the council. That would at least give the council the ability to then take a vote based on a bottom-up process that looked into the issue. Just a thought. This could give us a basis to work on. We might need some SCI assistance, not sure yet, to refine a couple of points to make this something that can occur quickly, such as voting on such a charter between meetings (the voting between meetings is already request already pending in the SCI), but unless I am mistaken we have no barrier to using our WG guidelines to actually get bottom-up work done outside of PDP constraints and time tables. Also, unless a WG is a PDP WG, it does not need to include the various stages of issues report, initial report etc. It can go from a GNSO Council Leadership constructed Charter, to an emergency meeting to vote on formation in less that the gap between two meetings. While this would not apply to creating policy which still requires a PDP, it could well resolve issues of whether something was consistent with policy. And could certainly work on issues to do with governance and transition. Just a thought. avri

4 6

FW: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group
by Jonathan Robinson May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

All, Please see below for the submission discussed and agreed under Agenda Item 5 in today's GNSO Council meeting. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 08 May 2014 22:40 To: 'ianatransition(a)icann.org' Subject: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group Dear ICANN, Please find the following comments regarding an emerging plan for a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) intended to make a substantive contribution to the the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions. These comments are respectfully submitted for and on behalf of the GNSO Council. Since well prior to the "Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions", there has been significant discussion on the substantial issues associated with the transition from NTIA. Some of this discussion has focussed on the prospect of the formation, chartering and working of a Cross-Community Working Group to deal with the key elements of this process. For the avoidance of doubt, the current CWG on Internet Governance has made it clear that its scope will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, an initial proposal for a charter of such a CWG was circulated in the community and this has received some iterations and developments since. It is far from the finished article and nor should it be, since the drafting of a such charter should be the first task of the CWG. Nevertheless, at its meeting today, the GNSO Council agreed to submit the early draft charter to this call for public input in order to commit to record both the early draft charter as a potential starting point and the intention to move forward with the bottom-up formation of a CWG in collaboration with others in the ICANN community. Accordingly, the draft charter is attached to this submission. An additional key point to note is that existing ICANN Community processes and relationships should be used to facilitate this effort as much as possible. This will minimise the need to create new processes and should generally enhance efficiency of the work. Notwithstanding this, modifications can be expected to be needed in order to facilitate and encourage participation by those from outside of the ICANN Community. The use of a CWG with a community defined scope, reflected in a well-defined charter provides the prospect of truly bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process to deal with this critical set of issues. Such a process may well integrate with the ICANN Draft Proposal (to be modified in response to this public comment) and we trust that the prospect of a CWG will be recognised by all for its potential value and legitimacy as a bottom-up, community led initiative proposed in good faith and which can be assisted and supported by ICANN as envisaged in the NTIA announcement. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair, ICANN GNSO Council

1 0

MP3 recording & chat transcript GNSO Council 8 May 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on Thursday, 8 May 2014 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20140508-en.mp3 as well as the Adobe chat transcript at : http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-chat-council-08may14-en.pdf all on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may Thank you. Happy listening and reading! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Slides and further information on the IDN Variant Project
by Mary Wong May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Hello everyone, Here is the link to the slides that I referred to during the Council meeting earlier today: http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-idn-variant-tld/presentation-id n-variant-tld-26mar14-en.pdf Two fundamental ³takeaways² from the first update today that I hope was clear are: (1) IDN variants will NOT be implemented or introduced into the root zone until all community work on the necessary code point repertoire and on generating the Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the 17 identified scripts is completed; and (2) a sufficient number of technical and linguistic experts (per the calls for such that were issued last year) are recruited from the community to help develop the code point repertoire and LGRs, including integrating them. As noted on the call, we will be scheduling a full primer (introductory, background, issue overview) session on this topic for the GNSO Council and community soon, hopefully before London. As with the regular staff updates, this is another follow up step from the discussions in Singapore. We will be sure to inform the Council and community once we have managed to schedule the primer session. In the meantime, here is ICANN¹s background page on the IDN Variant Project: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org * One World. One Internet. *

1 0

GNSO Council Resolutions 8 May 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Dear Councillors, Ahead of the Council minutes, please find the resolutions passed by the Council at its meeting on Thursday, 8 May 2014. Consent agenda: The Council confirmed the new Chair and Co-Chairs for the Data and Metrics for Policy Making non-PDP working group, namely Jonathan Zuck (IPC) as Chair as well as Rudy Vansnick (NPOC), Olevie Kouami (NPOC) and Cheryl Langdon-Orr (At-Large) as Co-Chairs. Confirmation of Avri Doria as member of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group and replacement for Mikey O’Conner. Motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13 WHEREAS, 1. the NGPC has adopted a proposed Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement to reflect requests by .BRAND TLDs whilst delaying the implementation of an additional clause contained therein, which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars; 2. the NGPC has sent a letter to the GNSO Council Chair asking for advice as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional clause is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-level Domains; 3. the GNSO Council thanks the NGPC for referring the matter back to the GNSO Council; 4. the GNSO Council has discussed the matter including with the Brand Registry Group (BRG) and considered the background information provided by the BRG; 5. the GNSO Council has reached out to participants in the Policy Development Process at the time of developing the policy and the associated Board Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (11 September 2007); 6. the Council acknowledges and understands the proposal made by .BRAND TLD operators; It is now RESOLVED: 1. that the 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, notwithstanding resolved 1,does not object to the implementation of Specification 13 as a whole, including an additional clause which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars, given the specific circumstances and the fact that a public comment period on Specification 13 was conducted in 2013 without objections from the GNSO, save for that from certain registrars, which was subsequently withdrawn; 3. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy affecting both existing and future TLDs, if and when the right granted to .BRAND TLDs is at risk of, or bears the risk of, being used for augmenting and / or circumventing the conditions of Specification 13 or any subsequent provisions; 4. that the Council's acceptance of a variation from original policy recommendation may not be taken as a precedent for any future decisions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#145]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 22 avril 2014 22:18 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#145] Name of Officer: * Steve DelBianco Officer Email Address: * sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, April 22, 2014 GNSO Organization: * Business Constituency Officer Position or Title: * vice chair for policy coordination Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * BC Councilor Gabriela Szlak has a scheduled meeting that conflicts with the 8-May-2014 Council telecon Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * For any matters coming before the Council. (Agenda not yet published) Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, May 9, 2014 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * John Berard

2 2

Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Dear James and Volker: Please let me know if I understand correctly the RrSG position based your comments below: · The proposed amendment to Specification 13 is inconsistent with policy recommendation 19 because no discrimination between registrars should be permitted; · Dot Brands possess the sole ability to execute bulk transfers; · Dot Brands, as registrants, are able to choose their own preferred registrars; and · Dot Brands can implement registration policies and requirements to limit the services provided by registrars to only eligible registrants. Forgive me if my encapsulation is wrong, but if I understand the RrSG position correctly, then I am concerned that it may gloss over some important nuances. First, the RrSG position seems based on an assumption that dot Brand registries will be the sole registrant for bulk transfer and registrar selection purposes, whereas Specification Thirteen clearly permits Affiliates and Trademark Licensees to register names as well, thus complicating matters a bit. Second, the RrSG position seems to encourage dot brand registries to discriminate among registrars using registration policies, or perhaps other restrictions or side agreements among Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, at their own peril. Absent any assurances from ICANN legal regarding the propriety of these indirect work-around suggestions, I imagine that dot Brands would be much more comfortable with the direct and formal provision in the Registry Agreement that is presently under consideration by the Council. As I understand it, that is why the provision is necessary in the first place—so dot Brands cannot be alleged to violate the Registry Agreement in accrediting only one or two preferred corporate registrars. I look forward to your responsive feedback. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt(a)kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question * From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> * Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:12:52 +0000 * Accept-language: en-US * In-reply-to: <535E1AA3.6090807(a)key-systems.net<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html>> * List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Thread-index: Ac9U37pVNGMfDV+cTSyNSj0xaeNagAJSGHAAAKWMf0oAGtHogAAH4hAAAAWYJ4AAWH6IgAAEVA2A * Thread-topic: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question ________________________________ Just to add to Volker¹s comments: Registrars have had a vigorous discussion on this topic, and provided feedback from diverse viewpoints. But on the narrow question--whether Spec 13 is compatible with Rec 19‹we generally believe it is not. We recognize that dot-BRAND applicants and TLDs are a new part of the domain name ecosystem, and will have unique interests not shared by other TLDs. For example, we whole-heartedly agree with the proposed restrictions in Spec 13 on ICANN¹s ability to re-delegate a string that was formerly part of a dot-BRAND. However, we do not agree with the assertion that these TLDs must be formally allowed to discriminate among ICANN-accredited registrars. In response to the concerns raised by proponents of Spec 13, about being beholden to a single registrar/service provider, we would point out that, as the Registry and Registrant, they would possess sole authority to execute a bulk transfer to a new exclusive registrar/service provider under existing ICANN policy. Additionally, to address concerns about ³trusted² vs. ³untrusted² registrar/service providers, we would note that, as the Registrant, they would be able to choose the services of any registrar (or group of registrars) of their choosing, without the need to include this language in the Registry Agreement. In fact, this concern is only legitimate in the scenario where the dot-BRAND TLD later extends registrations to unaffiliated third parties. In summary, Registrars do not believe that this component of Spec 13 is compatible with Recommendation 19 of the original new gTLD policy, and that while dot-Brand are likely to encounter concerns unique to their new category of TLD, these issues can be addressed under existing policy. Thanks‹ J. From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08 To: Bret Fausett <bret@xxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Dear council-members, after extensive discussion of the question put before us, the RrSG has likewise found this excemption to be inconsistent with both the language as well as with the spirit of the recommendation. The question we have been asked is not whether we like the proposed exemption or can live with it, but rather a very simple one: Is the proposed incorporation of an ability to restrict nondiscriminatory registrar access to dotBrand TLDs is not consistent with the intent and wording of Recommendation 19, or is it not. The recommendation explicitly states that "Registries (...) may not discriminate among (ICANN) accredited registrars". In other words, the language of the Recommendation 19 contradicts the proposed exemption. Therefore, to find the additional language to be consistent with the recommendation requires substantial arguments to that effect that would allow such an interpretation. To find it consistent because one likes the result or can live with the result does not fulfill this requirement. For such cases where implementation would conflict with existing policy, further policy work adjusting or confirming the Policy Recommendation is required. The GNSO Council should take the lead in initiating this policy work. Beyond the grammatical inconsistency of the Recommendation, the intent of the Recommendation also indicates inconsistency. As detailed in the final report on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains, the recommendation was supported by all GNSO Constituencies and Mrs Doria. According to the recollections of members of the new gTLD policy committee at the time the Recommendation was agreed upon, the concept of restricting registrar access was discussed in the context of community TLDs, which are in many ways similar to dotBrands. As registries have the ability under the Registry Agreement to restrict registrar access to their TLDs by establishing reasonable, nondiscriminatory accreditation criteria, it was ultimately agreed that discrimintation between registrars should not be permitted. In fact, the only public comment with regard to this recommendation came from the RyC, which was concerned that small, specialized registries may not be able to find a registrar to carry them. Note that this concern deals with a completely different problem. This concern led to the Vertical Integration Working group and the subsequent board decision allowing vertical integration. The idea of allowing only a few registrars does not appear in the Final Report. Finally, as registrants, dotBrands are perfectly free to discriminate between registrars. The Recommendation only deals with registries. By establishing certain registration requirements and policies, registries can further eliminate the ability of registrars to provide registry services beyond the eligible circle of registrants. Best regards, Volker Greimann Am 26.04.2014 16:54, schrieb Bret Fausett: Feedback: What we have been asked by the Board is to "advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains.² Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.² http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The discussion section of this policy recommendation does not make for any exceptions for brands. Plainly, as I read the provisions of the .BRAND Specification 13, it is ³inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.² Now, I personally happen to think that the draft Specification 13 for .BRAND TLDs is a tightly drafted, well-considered exception for a specialized type of TLD that was not being considered carefully when Recommendation 19 was prepared. BUT, it is definitely inconsistent with the policy recommendation we made in August, 2007. Let¹s think about what this means. -- Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Jonathan, I do hope to get more feedback. So far, I do not really have information to act on, but I am standing by to do what is necessary to meet the deadline. Thanks, Thomas Am 26.04.2014 um 10:29 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thanks Thomas, You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28th 23h59 UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday. Let¹s hope we can do that in such a way as to reflect the feedback you have and retain flexibility to modify (if necessary) as we receive further feedback. Let¹s you and I talk on Monday. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 April 2014 20:38 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Fwd: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question All, this is a gentle reminder to provide me with preliminary feedback. The motions and documents deadline is approaching rapidly and I have only received one response from the registrars so far. Also, I have reached out to Marilyn Cade (CBUC), Tony Holmes (ISPC), Kristina Rosette (IPC), Robin Gross (NCUC), Bruce Tonkin (Registrars) and Ken Stubbs (Registries) as they were listed in the final report of the PDP to cover their respective groups and since they hopefully have first-hand information on the discussions at the time. More people such as Avri, Bret and Alan are still here - please to chime in and respond. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Von: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> All, thanks to Jonathan for putting together and sending out the below message. I am more than happy to assist with making sure we get an answer prepared in time. Can I ask Councillors to get back to me offlist (in order not to swamp the list) with a status of the discussions with your respective groups? Certainly, one response per group is sufficient. If there is anything I can help with to facilitate your discussions, please let me know. The earlier I am provided with information on what direction your answers will take, the sooner I will be able to draft a motion and a letter to the NGPC for your review. Thanks, Thomas Am 10.04.2014 um 19:10 schrieb Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: All, Following on from previous dialogue and the Council meeting today, it seems to me that the way forward is to focus as closely as possible on the question being asked and to make every attempt to respond in a timely and effective manner. This means that, assuming it is required, a motion to be voted on needs to be submitted to the Council by 28 April for consideration at the 8 May 2014 meeting. We are being asked (full letter attached for reference) to 1. Š advise ICANN as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; or 2. advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. I believe that the question to take to your respective stakeholder groups / constituencies is therefore: Is this additional provision inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19? It will be helpful to have as clear as possible an answer as soon as possible along the following lines: · No. It is not inconsistent (Š with the letter and intent Š). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is not inconsistent. and · Are there any other qualifying points that the Council should make in its response to the NGPC? OR · Yes. It is inconsistent ( Š with the letter and intent Š ). and · Possibly, an explanation as to why it is inconsistent. and · Is there a process by which the Council could assist the NGPC in resolving this issue and in what time frame? Please can you all act as quickly as possible to provide an answer to the above. The timing is very tight. We already have an indication of where the BC & the IPC stand on this i.e. no, it is not inconsistent. Someone will need to lead on drafting a motion (for submission to the Council on or before 28 April) and an associated letter to the NGPC. Given the time constraints, this should probably take place in parallel with the consultation work. Can we please have a volunteer to lead this effort and ensure it gets done? Thomas? I have tried to simplify and focus the problem here in the interest of providing a representative, timely and effective response. I trust that in doing so I have not discounted any material points in the discussion to date. Please correct me if I have. Jonathan -- Bret Fausett, Esq. € General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 € Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-496-5755 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (T) € 310-985-1351 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] 310-985-1351 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting (M) € bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting [skype-ie-addon-data://res/numbers_button_skype_logo.png] +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ * References: * Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16070.html> * From: Volker Greimann ________________________________ <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16073.html> Chronological Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#16074> >>> <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16072.html> Thread Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd268.html#16074> >>><http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16022.html> ________________________________ Call Send SMS Add to Skype You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================

10 19

FW: Specification 13 : Letter to the GNSO
by Jonathan Robinson May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

All, Please see attached letter received today from the BRG. Thanks. Jonathan

3 4

Fwd: Question regarding discussions on Recommendation 19
by Thomas Rickert May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

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(a)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@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 > > >

1 0