Fwd: [council] new gTLD Program Committee resolution regarding Specification 13 of the new gTLD registry agreement

[Amr Elsadr]

Thanks McTim,

Substantively, I agree with you and I sympathise with the registries that have .brand applications. On the other hand, I am concerned with gTLD policy being developed by the ICANN board purely from a process perspective. I would argue on that point out of principle. The idea of the ICANN board developing policy is not one that I relish.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The board's resolution on specification 13 of the new gTLD registry
>> agreement is going to be a discussion topic on tomorrow's irregularly
>> scheduled GNSO council call. This resolution is specific to .Brand
>> registries, a model that was (as far as I can tell) not taken into
>> consideration back in 2007 when the GNSO WG on Introduction of new gTLDs
>> concluded its work.
>> 
>> The ICANN board has delayed implementation of this resolution for 45 days
>> pending feedback from the GNSO Council on whether the council believes this
>> resolution conflicts with policies developed in the GNSO, or not.
>> Personally, I'm somewhat divided on whether I have substantive difficulties
>> with this resolution or not and am keen to hear others thoughts (from both
>> in and out of NCSG).
> 
> I have no objection to it.  It seems incredible to me that a .Brand
> MUST use Registrars at all!
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140409/d9f99003/attachment.htm>