Horacio makes very good points. Like Amr, however, I am concerned about 
the creation of policy for so many new registries (hundreds) through an 
exception process. In this case, I don't see a huge problem with the 
outcome, but in the future, there might be. I think re-enforcing the 
"process" aspects of this work, and urging that exceptions continue to 
receive very close scrutiny -- especially exceptions that have broad and 
far reaching implications for many registries - makes sense for the GNSO 
Council.

But like, Horacio, I understand where Specification 13 came from and why 
it was adopted, and it fits a need that has been clearly voiced.

Best,
Kathy:
> On April 9, 2014 11:01:19 PM Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> IIRC, the application guidebook provides the applicants
> an avenue for requesting for exemptions from some of the
> specifications.  Specification 13 looks like an embodiment
> of an exemption sought by a specific group. So this isn't really
> developing a new policy.
>
> Like McTim I find it very strange why .Brands would need to
> use registrars at all.  Another is why they would need to escrow their
> data.  After all, a closed brand's registrants are all units of the
> brand. If the registry fails, it is the brand which suffers, not an 
> innocent
> 3rd party which needs protection from ICANN
>
>
>
>
> Sent with AquaMail for Android
> http://www.aqua-mail.com