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

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Equal treatment as a long-term goal is one thing, equal treatment as an 
immediate requirement is quite another.

There has never been any suggestion in the debate on RPMs for new gTLDs that 
whatever was adopted would be immediately imposed on the incumbent gTLDs via 
the contract renewal process. That position was never even considered, much 
less supported, by the RAPWG. And imposing URS right now on .Net (and by 
implication, on .Com next year) is at complete odds with a balanced UDRP reform 
process that is informed by, but not necessarily bound to, the experience with 
new RPMs at the new gTLDs.

To be clear, ICA has consistently advocated that the goal should be to have 
equivalent RPMs across all gTLDs so that registrants have the same rights and 
responsibilities throughout the DNS. But we oppose the immediate imposition of 
URS on .Net, the second largest gTLD and third largest overall, through a 
contract renewal process where those changes would take effect in less than two 
months - when we don't even know what the final form of those RPMs will be (and 
still may not know even after Singapore, given Secretary Strickling's remarks 
last week and the pressure on ICANN to delay final approval and engage in 
extended discussions with the GAC), much less have any real world experience 
with their workings, effectiveness, and potential for abuse.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:08 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

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.

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3626 - Release Date: 05/09/11