draft motion - response to NGPC letter - Rec 19/Spec 13
All, please find attached a draft motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13. We may need to continue our discussion but one clear message is that it is important to respond in a timely way to the deadline set by the NGPC. Therefore, any associated motion must meet the documents and motions deadline today for the upcoming GNSO Council telephone conference. The proposed motion encompasses the following messages, which I have heard and read so far: - There is an inconsistency between Recommendation 9 and Spec 13. - There is an understanding for and recognition of the .BRAND Registries' request. - The Council should respond to the NGPC's request and - in case an inconsistency is existent - make a constructive proposal on how to deal with this. Therefore, I have included additional clauses to state that the Council does not oppose the implementation of all of Spec 13 now, but requests that the Board make sure that appropriate safeguards are put in place in future rounds. Also, I have included a clause on the Council reserving the right to initiate a PDP if need be. I hope this is an acceptable compromise and I am more than happy to discuss this further. Thanks, Thomas
Dear All, The motion has been posted on the Motion's Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+8+May+2014 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Thomas Rickert Envoyé : lundi 28 avril 2014 21:35 À : GNSO Council List; GNSO Secretariat Objet : [council] draft motion - response to NGPC letter - Rec 19/Spec 13 All, please find attached a draft motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13. We may need to continue our discussion but one clear message is that it is important to respond in a timely way to the deadline set by the NGPC. Therefore, any associated motion must meet the documents and motions deadline today for the upcoming GNSO Council telephone conference. The proposed motion encompasses the following messages, which I have heard and read so far: - There is an inconsistency between Recommendation 9 and Spec 13. - There is an understanding for and recognition of the .BRAND Registries' request. - The Council should respond to the NGPC's request and - in case an inconsistency is existent - make a constructive proposal on how to deal with this. Therefore, I have included additional clauses to state that the Council does not oppose the implementation of all of Spec 13 now, but requests that the Board make sure that appropriate safeguards are put in place in future rounds. Also, I have included a clause on the Council reserving the right to initiate a PDP if need be. I hope this is an acceptable compromise and I am more than happy to discuss this further. Thanks, Thomas
Dear Thomas, as indicated by our statements, I currently have my doubts if this motion will have the support of the RrSG in its current form. I expect that there will be a requst for an amendment of sections 2 and 3 forthcoming in the next few days. I fully agree that the council should be constructive in its response to the Board, however not to the extent of telling the Board that it is OK to disregard policy in this special case. That would set a dangerous precedent. Best, Volker Am 28.04.2014 21:35, schrieb Thomas Rickert:
All, please find attached a draft motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13.
We may need to continue our discussion but one clear message is that it is important to respond in a timely way to the deadline set by the NGPC. Therefore, any associated motion must meet the documents and motions deadline today for the upcoming GNSO Council telephone conference.
The proposed motion encompasses the following messages, which I have heard and read so far:
- There is an inconsistency between Recommendation 9 and Spec 13. - There is an understanding for and recognition of the .BRAND Registries' request. - The Council should respond to the NGPC's request and - in case an inconsistency is existent - make a constructive proposal on how to deal with this.
Therefore, I have included additional clauses to state that the Council does not oppose the implementation of all of Spec 13 now, but requests that the Board make sure that appropriate safeguards are put in place in future rounds. Also, I have included a clause on the Council reserving the right to initiate a PDP if need be.
I hope this is an acceptable compromise and I am more than happy to discuss this further.
Thanks, Thomas
-- 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.
Hi, I received some outreach on the issue and wrote the following in response. As it applies to the discussion on this list, I decided to forward it on, typos and all.
At this point, I do not think I personally support the motion as written.
- While it is true that we did not specifically discuss .brand, we did discuss various forms of what could have been called single use gTLDs and never made any registrar exceptions for those.
- the VI decision allows for any .brand to also become a registrar and the rules allow for it to tailor the rules of registrars for specific registry limitations.
- I do not see how I can decry the use of non PDP originated decisions by the board in other cases, yet support it in this case. I advocate the need for a PDP to discuss the issue
- If we are to create exceptions I would be interested in seeing it go further to support other single use cases, such as an NGO that wanted to give registrations to its members. My reading of Spec 13 don't seem to go that far.
Having said that I will listen to the discussions, and ongoing discussion in NCSG and make up my mind later in the process.
avri
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria
-
Glen de Saint Géry
-
Thomas Rickert
-
Volker Greimann