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.

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