new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26mar14-... Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants. Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents. Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-... [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs." Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-13-publi... ). Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time. Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-... ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. "The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following: Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD." A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
All, As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point: --- Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. --- I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014. Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or before 10 May 2014: 1. To provide no advice and therefore: To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail. 2. To provide advice and therefore: (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail. OR (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision may NOT prevail. OR (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice. In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see: Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." See here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtlds -11sep07.pdf The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm including the BRG's supporting statement here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13- en.pdf and the ICANN staff summary here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14mar14-e n.pdf Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs". Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26mar14- en.htm Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants. Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents. Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed- 06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs." Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-13-publ ic-comments/ ). Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time. Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. "The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following: Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD." A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
Hi Jonathan, I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict with Recommendation 19. While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common position now, if achievable. Best, Volker Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson:
All,
As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
---
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
---
I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or before 10 May 2014:
1. To provide no advice and therefore: To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail.
2. To provide advice and therefore: (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail. OR (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision may NOT prevail. OR (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." See here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtlds -11sep07.pdf
The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
including the BRG's supporting statement here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13- en.pdf
and the ICANN staff summary here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14mar14-e n.pdf
Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26mar14- en.htm
Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants
Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents.
Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed- 06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-13-publ ic-comments/ ).
Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
"The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following:
Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD."
A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
-- 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.
All,
As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
---
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
---
I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or before 10 May 2014:
1. To provide no advice and therefore: To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will
Volker, Good point to place this discussion in the context of the promotion of " ... competition, consumer choice and consumer trust ... " as a reference point. Also, to be aware that many (all?) of us may need time to sound out our respective groups / constituencies on the substance and processes relating to this issue. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: 01 April 2014 12:57 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement Hi Jonathan, I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict with Recommendation 19. While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common position now, if achievable. Best, Volker Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson: prevail.
2. To provide advice and therefore: (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
will prevail.
OR (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision may NOT prevail. OR (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." See here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new -gtlds -11sep07.pdf
The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
including the BRG's supporting statement here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06 dec13- en.pdf
and the ICANN staff summary here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14m ar14-e n.pdf
Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26 mar14- en.htm
Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants
Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents.
Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-
06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-1 3-publ ic-comments/ ).
Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1
-26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
"The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following:
Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD."
A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
-- 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.
All, as a Council, we need to be responsive when we are asked and we should get back to the Board with a substantive answer in time. We cannot complain about being circumvented and not answer when we are asked. In terms of how we do this: This might be a matter of implementation oversight, so can we reach out to original WG members and tap their knowledge about the WG deliberations at the time on this specific recommendation? Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 01.04.2014 um 18:36 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Volker,
Good point to place this discussion in the context of the promotion of " ... competition, consumer choice and consumer trust ... " as a reference point.
Also, to be aware that many (all?) of us may need time to sound out our respective groups / constituencies on the substance and processes relating to this issue.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net] Sent: 01 April 2014 12:57 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
Hi Jonathan,
I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict with Recommendation 19.
While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common position now, if achievable.
Best,
Volker
All,
As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
---
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
---
I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or before 10 May 2014:
1. To provide no advice and therefore: To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will
Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson: prevail.
2. To provide advice and therefore: (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
will prevail.
OR (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision may NOT prevail. OR (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." See here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new -gtlds -11sep07.pdf
The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
including the BRG's supporting statement here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06 dec13- en.pdf
and the ICANN staff summary here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14m ar14-e n.pdf
Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26 mar14- en.htm
Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants
Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents.
Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed- 06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-1 3-publ ic-comments/ ).
Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
"The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following:
Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD."
A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
-- 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.
All, I have continued to give this some thought and follow-up. You will see that an initial discussion is now scheduled for our council meeting next week. This is part of a timetable we need to be aware of which seems to me to be as follows: 1. 28 March 2014 - Publication date of minutes of NGPC a. Refers the issue to the GNSO Council and b. Sets clock to start regarding 45 days 2. 10 April 2014 - GNSO Council Meeting a. Become as well-briefed as possible and b. Ask initial questions / have the discussion to clarify the position 3. 10 April to 8 May 2014 - Inter-meeting period a. Provides for any supplementary information gathering and b. Discussion / further discussion in groups / constituencies and c. Discussion on council list and (to work within the 45 days) d. Drafting of a response 4. 28 April 2014 - Motion deadline for next GNSO meeting 5. 8 May 2014 - GNSO Meeting a. Opportunity to conclude a position in time to meet 45 day deadline or b. Agree to request an extension 6. 12 May 2014 - 45 day deadline Recognising that by our 10 April meeting, you may not yet have had time to become fully informed or consult within your groups, I suggest we focus that discussion on establishing the background and facts. The objective being to ensure that we are collectively and individually as fully and uniformly informed as possible as we move forward to consult within our respective groups. Following that, we can then go on to decide on the appropriate response to the NGPC I have spoken today to Martin Sutton, Chair of the Brand Registry Group and Martin is willing to brief us at the meeting on 10th of April or, at least, to be available to answer any questions regarding Specification 13. In addition, is there any other information that could be helpful in ensuring that Councillors are as well-informed as possible to move forward with this issue? I am mindful of Thomas’s point below where it is desirable for us to act effectively and in a timely fashion. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 01 April 2014 18:33 To: <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: Volker Greimann; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement All, as a Council, we need to be responsive when we are asked and we should get back to the Board with a substantive answer in time. We cannot complain about being circumvented and not answer when we are asked. In terms of how we do this: This might be a matter of implementation oversight, so can we reach out to original WG members and tap their knowledge about the WG deliberations at the time on this specific recommendation? Thomas ============= thomas-rickert.tel +49.228.74.898.0
Am 01.04.2014 um 18:36 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" < <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Volker,
Good point to place this discussion in the context of the promotion of " ...
competition, consumer choice and consumer trust ... " as a reference point.
Also, to be aware that many (all?) of us may need time to sound out
our respective groups / constituencies on the substance and processes
relating to this issue.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann [ <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net]
Sent: 01 April 2014 12:57
To: <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Bruce Tonkin'; <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
Hi Jonathan,
I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter
clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting
competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across
all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict
with Recommendation 19.
While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter
may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the
GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained
mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common
position now, if achievable.
Best,
Volker
Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson:
All,
As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
---
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
---
I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be
[23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that
we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or
before 10 May
2014:
1. To provide no advice and therefore:
To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
will
prevail.
2. To provide advice and therefore:
(a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent
of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional
provision
will prevail.
OR
(b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
may
NOT prevail.
OR
(c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review,
including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case
of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among
such accredited registrars."
See here:
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-ne> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-ne
w
-gtlds
-11sep07.pdf
The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here:
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
including the BRG's supporting statement here:
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-0> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-0
6
dec13-
en.pdf
and the ICANN staff summary here:
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14
m
ar14-e
n.pdf
Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide
advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a
Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually
Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [ <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02
To: <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From:
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2
6
mar14-
en.htm
Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of
Applicants
Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee
(NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be
entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding
modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns
of their constituents.
Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a
proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-pro> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-pro
posed-
06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would
provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that
qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the
public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a
registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN
accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in
response to a comment submitted by a
group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised
draft
was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014
( <http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-> http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-
1
3-publ
ic-comments/ ).
Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the
group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above
during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the
inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD
to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in
the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use
only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may
not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from
the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13
provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators
of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the
authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise
the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise
relating to the New gTLD Program.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the
New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1
( <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-a> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-a
nnex-1
-26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause
allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number
preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and
CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement
Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with
this
resolution.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of
the additional clause identified below into Specification 13.
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
publication of this resolution
to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
"The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is
superseded
by the following:
Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator
must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to
all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with
the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that
Registry
Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to
register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper
functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN
accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive
registrar(s) for the TLD."
A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to
incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation.
The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all
necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to
the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
--
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: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net / <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.:
DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu> 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: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net / <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu> 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.
Hi Jonathan, Many thanks for this. It's a topic I've not personally taken a strong view on and will definitely need a little time to inform myself and consult with my constituency about. I appreciate this being on this week's agenda for information and discussion so we can start considering the implications as well as the possibilities / advisability of action. In principle - and without having anything yet to add to the substantive discussion - I agree with others that if the Board is asking us for our view, then we should take and be seen to take that request seriously. All the best, Maria On 4 April 2014 16:23, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
I have continued to give this some thought and follow-up. You will see that an initial discussion is now scheduled for our council meeting next week.
This is part of a timetable we need to be aware of which seems to me to be as follows:
1. 28 March 2014 - Publication date of minutes of NGPC
a. Refers the issue to the GNSO Council and
b. Sets clock to start regarding 45 days
2. 10 April 2014 - GNSO Council Meeting
a. Become as well-briefed as possible and
b. Ask initial questions / have the discussion to clarify the position
3. 10 April to 8 May 2014 - Inter-meeting period
a. Provides for any supplementary information gathering and
b. Discussion / further discussion in groups / constituencies and
c. Discussion on council list and (to work within the 45 days)
d. Drafting of a response
4. 28 April 2014 - Motion deadline for next GNSO meeting
5. 8 May 2014 - GNSO Meeting
a. Opportunity to conclude a position in time to meet 45 day deadline or
b. Agree to request an extension
6. 12 May 2014 - 45 day deadline
Recognising that by our 10 April meeting, you may not yet have had time to become fully informed or consult within your groups, I suggest we focus that discussion on establishing the background and facts.
The objective being to ensure that we are collectively and individually as fully and uniformly informed as possible as we move forward to consult within our respective groups. Following that, we can then go on to decide on the appropriate response to the NGPC
I have spoken today to Martin Sutton, Chair of the Brand Registry Group and Martin is willing to brief us at the meeting on 10th of April or, at least, to be available to answer any questions regarding Specification 13.
In addition, is there any other information that could be helpful in ensuring that Councillors are as well-informed as possible to move forward with this issue?
I am mindful of Thomas's point below where it is desirable for us to act effectively and in a timely fashion.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de] Sent: 01 April 2014 18:33 To: <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: Volker Greimann; Bruce Tonkin; <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
All,
as a Council, we need to be responsive when we are asked and we should get back to the Board with a substantive answer in time. We cannot complain about being circumvented and not answer when we are asked.
In terms of how we do this: This might be a matter of implementation oversight, so can we reach out to original WG members and tap their knowledge about the WG deliberations at the time on this specific recommendation?
Thomas
=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0
Am 01.04.2014 um 18:36 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" < jrobinson@afilias.info>:
Volker,
Good point to place this discussion in the context of the promotion of " ...
competition, consumer choice and consumer trust ... " as a reference point.
Also, to be aware that many (all?) of us may need time to sound out
our respective groups / constituencies on the substance and processes
relating to this issue.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net<vgreimann@key-systems.net> ]
Sent: 01 April 2014 12:57
To: jrobinson@afilias.info; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
Hi Jonathan,
I would argue in favor of providing some form of advice as the matter
clearly touches upon some of the most basic policies, namely promoting
competition through equal, non-discriminatory registrar access across
all gTLDs. At face value the excemption seems to be in direct conflict
with Recommendation 19.
While this conflict may be resolvable, remaining mute on the matter
may be detrimental when the board has explicitly reached out to the
GNSO for input on the matter. While we have - as a council - remained
mute during the public comment phase, we should work on a common
position now, if achievable.
Best,
Volker
Am 01.04.2014 09:40, schrieb Jonathan Robinson:
All,
As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point:
---
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
publication of this resolution to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
---
I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be
[23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014.
Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that
we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or
before 10 May
2014:
1. To provide no advice and therefore:
To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
will
prevail.
2. To provide advice and therefore:
(a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent
of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional
provision
will prevail.
OR
(b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this
additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of
GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision
may
NOT prevail.
OR
(c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review,
including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case
of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice.
In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see:
Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among
such accredited registrars."
See here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-ne
w
-gtlds
-11sep07.pdf
The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
including the BRG's supporting statement here:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-0
6
dec13-
en.pdf
and the ICANN staff summary here:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14
m
ar14-e
n.pdf
Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide
advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a
Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually
Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs".
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> ]
Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding
Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement
From:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-2
6
mar14-
en.htm
Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of
Applicants
Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee
(NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be
entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants.
Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding
modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns
of their constituents.
Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a
proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-pro
posed-
06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would
provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that
qualify as ".Brand TLDs."
Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the
public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a
registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN
accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in
response to a comment submitted by a
group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised
draft
was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014
(http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-
1
3-publ
ic-comments/ ).
Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the
group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above
during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the
inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD
to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time.
Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in
the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use
only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may
not discriminate among such accredited registrars."
Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from
the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13
provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators
of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs.
Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the
authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise
the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise
relating to the New gTLD Program.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the
New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-a
nnex-1
-26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause
allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number
preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and
CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement
Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with
this
resolution.
Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of
the additional clause identified below into Specification 13.
Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the
publication of this resolution
to:
(i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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;
or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for
review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required.
"The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is
superseded
by the following:
Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator
must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to
all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with
the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that
Registry
Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to
register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper
functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN
accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive
registrar(s) for the TLD."
A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to
incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation.
The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all
necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to
the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
--
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.
All, As per the resolution below, we need to be aware of the following point: --- Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. --- I understand the 45 days from publication (28 March 2014) to be [23h59 UTC] on 12 May 2014. Therefore the course of action open to the Council seems to me that we must exercise one of the following (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) options on or before 10 May 2014: 1. To provide no advice and therefore: To NOT advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail. 2. To provide advice and therefore: (a) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is NOT inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision will prevail. OR (b) To advise ICANN that the GNSO Council believes that this additional provision is inconsistent [with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19] in which case the additional provision may NOT prevail. OR (c) To advise that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. N.B. 2(a) is logically equivalent to 1 above except that in the case of 2(a), we pro-actively provide the advice. In looking into this in a little more detail, I can see: Recommendation 19 is that "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." See here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtlds -11sep07.pdf The original public comment period on Specification 13 is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm including the BRG's supporting statement here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13- en.pdf and the ICANN staff summary here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14mar14-e n.pdf Note that the GNSO Council did not previously comment or provide advice to ICANN in relation to this matter i.e. the " Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs". Thanks, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:02 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-26mar14- en.htm Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants Whereas, on 2 July 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by ICANN and successful New gTLD applicants. Whereas, the Brand Registry Group engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement to address concerns of their constituents. Whereas, on 6 December 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed- 06dec13-en.pdf [PDF, 80 KB] ("Specification 13"), which if adopted would provide limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as ".Brand TLDs." Whereas, the proposed Specification 13 was revised in response to the public comments, including the removal of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to designate one or more ICANN accredited registrars as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD in response to a comment submitted by a group of eleven registrars. An update to the community and a revised draft was posted on the ICANN Blog on 14 March 2014 (http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/summary-and-analysis-of-specification-13-publ ic-comments/ ). Whereas, on 25 March 2014 the NGPC received notification from the group of registrars that submitted the joint comment referenced above during the public comment period that it no longer objected to the inclusion of a provision allowing a registry operator of a .BRAND TLD to be limited to using no more than two registrars at one time. Whereas, the NGPC takes specific note of Policy Recommendation 19 in the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (8 August 2007), which provides that "registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community, and has determined that the revised Specification 13 provides appropriate and limited accommodations to registry operators of TLDs that qualify as .Brand TLDs. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG01), the NGPC approves Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -26mar14-en.pdf ) [PDF, 106 KB] (which does not include the clause allowing a .Brand registry operator to designate a limited number preferred registrars for the TLD), and authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee, to take all necessary steps to implement Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution. Resolved (2014.03.26.NG02), the NGPC approves the incorporation of the additional clause identified below into Specification 13. Implementation will not take effect until 45 days from the publication of this resolution to: (i) provide the GNSO Council an opportunity 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; or (ii) advise ICANN that the GNSO Council needs additional time for review, including an explanation as to why additional time is required. "The second sentence of Section 2.9(a) of the Agreement is superseded by the following: Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator must either (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or (ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point in time to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD." A .BRAND TLD registry operator may amend its Specification 13 to incorporate this provision upon request as part of implementation. The President and CEO, or his designee, is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this provision in Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement consistent with this resolution.
participants (5)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Jonathan Robinson -
Maria Farrell -
Thomas Rickert -
Volker Greimann