RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers

["Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My concern is that by includng the words "contract" this will be misread by 
ICANN as a green light to go forward with regulation having nothing to do with 
these parties' qualifications even if the idea of an "other mechanism" is also 
included as an option.

The following language addresses my concern but keeps the same meaning Phil 
originally intended:

The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other 
UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP 
providers should be accredited until ICANN implements with all accredited 
providers a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures 
and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider 
responsibilities.

In the rest of the document, I'd recommend replacing "contact" with "standard 
mechanism."

Thanks,

Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670


________________________________
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:29 AM
To: 'Phil Corwin'; Deutsch, Sarah B; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard 
Contract for UDRP Providers

I share Sarah's concern but agree with Phil that our current language is 
flexible:

The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other 
UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP 
providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with 
all accredited providers or develops some other mechanism for establishing 
uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing 
arbitration provider responsibilities. (emphasis added)

Philip