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@anwaelte.de> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

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@afilias.info>:

...

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. … 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 (… with the letter and intent …). 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 ( … with the letter and intent … ). 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

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@afilias.info>:

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.

Let’s 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.

Let’s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] 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@anwaelte.de> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

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@afilias.info>:

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. … 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 (… with the letter and intent …). 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 ( … with the letter and intent … ). 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, all, thanks for your e-mail, Bret. That is much appreciated. You are not the first to see this as an inconsistency with policy recommendation 19. I think it was Alan, who was also at the table in 2007, who also stated that this scenario was not considered at the time. While we are waiting for more feedback, let's just work on the basis of the assumption that it is inconsistent and in fact think about what this means as you suggested. It would mean that this part of Spec. 13 would be in violation of the original policy recommendations and I guess the consequence would be that additional policy work would need to be done to address this. But: Is this policy work really required to achieve the goal of giving .BRAND TLDs sufficient protection (and I have not heard anyone who did not sympathize with the request as such)? I guess the answer is no. Let's think this through. 1. Registries can already ask for an exemption from the Registry Code of Conduct for exclusive use TLDs. Those, who qualify for this exemption would not need to base their choice of registrars on the requested clause of Spec. 13. However, I am sure there are many .BRAND TLDs that would not qualify as exclusive use TLDs, which is why they could not successfully ask for an exception. Interim result: This is only a partial solution at best. 2. All Registries, not only .BRANDs haver far-reaching opportunities to draft their policies. They can establish, eligibility requirements as to who can be a registrant, they can introduce validation requirements, they can ask for technical features that are non-standard and they can determine a pricing structure including payment of deposits to name just a few parameters. By using these tools, all Registries have the possibility to achieve exactly the goal of limiting the number of Registrars down to zero. I do not believe that a registrar would take the effort to be onboarded with a Registry knowing that there is not going to be any substantial business. I have not been able to identify reasons why this part of Spec. 13 is needed at all because of the above. A response could therefore be to state that: - The Council appreciates the request. - There is an inconsistency with Rec. 19 (at least identifies by some). - Fixing that would potentially require policy work. - The Council recommends not to grant the exception. - The Council believes that the new gTLD program provides tools for all applicants to achieve the result they wish by crafting their policies accordingly. - This solution would maintain equal treatment or Registrars and avoid granting exceptions that could potentially lead to gaming the system at a later stage. Certainly, we need to wait for more feedback to come in and that might change my suggested approach, but I guess there is an issue at least for some and by responding as I outlined, we could highlight that and yet be constructive. Thanks Thomas Am 26.04.2014 um 16:54 schrieb Bret Fausett <bret@nic.sexy>:

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.”

Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.” 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 “inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.”

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.

Let’s 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com — — — — —

On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> 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@afilias.info>:

...

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.

Let’s 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.

Let’s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] 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@anwaelte.de> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>

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@afilias.info>:

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. … 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 (… with the letter and intent …). 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 ( … with the letter and intent … ). 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com — — — — —

I view this as no more inconsistent than the Board being inconsistent with GNSO recommendations 9 and 10 which state: 9 There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective and measurable criteria. 10 There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the application process. During the gTLD implementation process, it became apparent that some of the objective and measurable criteria needed to be changed due to things like Early Warnings, GAC advice, String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, the Independent Objector, etc. All of these things were changed / modified and in a lot of cases ADDED after the final approval of the GNSO Recommendations. And the Base contract…..geez that was not even finalized until ….well January 15th of this year (after many people signed the contract). And who can forget the amendment process which was COMPLETELY changed MONTHS after applications had already been submitted and the lottery held. Or how about the IOC.Red Cross and IGO fiasco. The point is that where justified, and where circumstances have changed, we have tolerated inconsistencies especially where they make sense. This is one of those areas. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman@neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Organization: Afilias Reply-To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 6:19 PM To: 'Bret Fausett' <bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy>>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Thanks Bret, I agree, this needs careful thought as to how we both deal with the question as posed to us AND navigate the underlying issue in a way that is as constructive as possible . Jonathan From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@nic.sexy] Sent: 26 April 2014 15:55 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question 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.” Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.” http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=0a95df6bc664108a52fe602ce2beed152a58e9c06652655d3d27d677493f20ee> 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 “inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.” 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. Let’s 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com<mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — — On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> 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@afilias.info<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>>: 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. Let’s 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. Let’s you and I talk on Monday. Jonathan From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] 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@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c> Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@afilias.info<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://mailto:jrobinson%40afilias.info&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=m7qegRqpefS098Fd3c6fiiAAzu4qUI0rD3mbB5FGQd4%3D%0A&m=PTOKvxZuscgWjeqfaUMI%2B9q5KfLwqz6tB%2FEIhtaAHrg%3D%0A&s=7dd0640ce2869a28686ce7d5c5958e6aea4ce2be0fb75bc0f9942056c877b60c>>: 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. … 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 (… with the letter and intent …). 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 ( … with the letter and intent … ). 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com<mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — —

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.”

Policy Recommendation 19 reads: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.” 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 “inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19.”

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.

Let’s 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — —

On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> 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@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:

...

Thanks Thomas,

You will have seen that the motion deadline is Monday 28^th 23h59 UTC so, assuming we will meet the 45 day deadline, we will need a motion on Monday.

Let’s 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.

Let’s you and I talk on Monday.

Jonathan

*From:*Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] *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@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>> *Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question* *Datum:*22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ *An:*jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> *Kopie:*GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>:

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.… 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 (… with the letter and intent …). 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 ( … with the letter and intent … ). 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 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — —

-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems 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 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.

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@key-Systems.net> Date: Monday, April 28, 2014 at 4:08 To: Bret Fausett <bret@nic.sexy>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> 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 (T) € 310-985-1351 (M) € bret@uniregistry.com ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:14 AM, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> 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@afilias.info>: 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@anwaelte.de] 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@anwaelte.de> Betreff: Aw: [council] A way forward on the Specification 13 question Datum: 22. April 2014 14:40:58 MESZ An: jrobinson@afilias.info Kopie: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@afilias.info>: 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 (T) € 310-985-1351 (M) € bret@uniregistry.com ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ -- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / 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>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> 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / 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>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> 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.