RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

In relation to the discussion about URS, Trademark clearing and .NET, please
note that the proposal earlier (see below) is a principle of equal treatment.
Under this principle the BC DEFAULT would be that all new mechanisms (including
rights protection) would form part of a new .NET contract.
 
A secondary argument, then comes in.
Is there any BC-supported reason NOT to do this for any specific new obligation?
That is the inverse starting point to the debate at present. 
Maybe we need a vote on the first principle.
 
Philip
--------------------------------
 
NEW
The BC believes in the principle of equal treatment. Under this as ICANN's
contracts evolve to suit changing market conditions, the ICANN contract renewal
process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new
standards. This is fair both from a public interest perspective and from a
competition law perspective. Under the ICANN process the contract parties are in
the room when the conditions for new market entrants are being set. Under these
unusual circumstances the contract parties cannot expect their older contracts
to be immune from the changes they themselves are imposing on their future
competitors.
 
In the context of .NET therefore, ICANN should seek as a fundamental principle
to amend this contract to equate with the requirements of the new gTLD program.