[NCUC-DISCUSS] Cyrus Namazi's Summary and Analysis of Specification 13 Public Comments

[Pranesh Prakash]

 From the ICANN blog:
http://goo.gl/y4hE05


# Summary and Analysis of Specification 13 Public Comments

As a result of sincere and constructive discussions and negotiations, a 
proposed Specification 13 is in our hands. If approved by NGPC, 
Specification 13 would provide limited accommodations to registry 
operators of TLDs that qualify as “.Brand TLDs.” As many as one-third of 
all new gTLD applications might qualify as .Brand TLDs.

On 6 December 2013, we posted a draft of the proposed Specification 13 
for [public comment][1]. In response to the proposed draft the ICANN 
community submitted [dozens of thoughtful and constructive comments][2], 
leading to several modifications and, what I hope to be, the final 
draft. The summary and analysis of public comments can be viewed 
[here][3] [PDF, 550 KB].

The accommodations proposed in the revised version of [Specification 13 
Base Agreement][4] [PDF, 244 KB] and [Change-Pro Redline][5] [PDF, 265 
KB] are as follows:

   * Exemption from the Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement. 
Specification 9, also referred to as the Code of Conduct, is designed to 
protect the TLD’s registrants, but in the case of a .Brand there is no 
need to protect the .Brand operator from itself.
   * Deferral of Sunrise requirements. A .Brand TLD’s requirement to 
conduct a Sunrise registration period would be deferred for as long as 
the TLD continues to qualify as a .Brand TLD. If the TLD ever ceases to 
operate as a .Brand TLD, then the TLD would have to comply with the 
Sunrise requirements and hold a Sunrise period within 60 days.
   * A 2-year “cooling-off” period prior to re-delegation of the .Brand 
TLD to a successor registry operator, in most cases. The provision does 
not prevent ICANN’s appointment of an EBERO.
   * Registry Operator must conduct an annual self-audit and certify 
that the TLD continues to qualify as a .Brand TLD.
   * Revised definitions of “.Brand TLD” and “Trademark Licensee” to 
address concerns and adopt several suggestions of the commentators.
   * Removal of the ability of the .Brand registry operator to designate 
exclusive registrars for the TLD.

Now the ICANN community is able to review this final draft before it is 
submitted to the New gTLD Program Committee for consideration at ICANN 
49 in Singapore.

I would like to thank the Brand Registry Group for their consistently 
professional and constructive negotiations in defining and drafting the 
proposed specification.

Please email me with any comments or feedback on the proposed final 
draft of Specification 13 at cyrus.namazi at icann.org.

    [1]: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
    [2]: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/
    [3]: 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-spec13-14mar14-en.pdf
    [4]: 
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-14mar14-en.pdf
    [5]: 
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-redline-14mar14-en.pdf

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140315/9e0b612b/attachment.pgp>