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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> 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