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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just asked Steve to work with the Rapporteurs to gather all comments. 
Depending on the views of members,and following the Charter, the question of 
voting on the draft position may be appropriate. If so, and there are different 
views on sub elements, then it could be that the ballot would separate out 
certain sub elements. That needs to be determined by Steve as V.Chair, Policy 
Coordination, in consultation with the Rapporteurs.That is a process comment, 
as chair.
In addition, I ask that members consider: -- PDP WG process isn't working out 
in a balanced manner, from the feedback I getfrom members who participate, and 
from my own observation. Parties can 'stack the participant deck' and then 
block any agreement coming out of a WG. 
PDPs are binding if they reach consensus status, and not if not. 
It could be that the operating registry would accept moving to thick WHOIS on a 
voluntary contractual basis, and that such a proposal would in any case, be 
published for public comment.  If established by contractual negotiations, the 
termswould be important to follow and comment on [e.g. what said data can be 
used for, etc.]. 
Registrars are likely to oppose any such change, as will the NCUC... I suspect. 
 


My individual comments on the draft are provided separately, and as an 
individual. 
Marilyn Cade



From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 15:08:11 +0200








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.