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