Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on New gTLD Registry Agreement

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

The response is generally quite good. My only comment is in the area of 
unilateral change by the ICANN Board. While most businesses would prefer 
(refuse?) to sign a commercial contract where the other party has universal 
control of terms, these agreements can be considered as an agreement with the 
public.

ICANN operates in the public interest. That interest should take precedence 
over the interest of any, or all contracted parties. If it doesn't, and I argue 
it hasn't for far to long at ICANN, the public can be and has been poorly 
served.

Contracted parties are not coerced to sign contracts, the choose to do so. They 
are equally free to exit an agreement if the terms required by the public prove 
unacceptable.

I realize this is a significant change from the policies and practices of the 
past here at ICANN. However, as any organization matures, so should its 
practices. It's time for ICANN to make a significant shift and recognize that 
it has an obligation to the public and for those that provide services on 
support of the DNS to recognize the obligations they have as well.

I look forward to role discussion on this.

Bill

On Mar 15, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on 
New gTLD Registry Agreement 
(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>).
   This comment period closes 20-Mar.

As discussed on our member call this week, this draft does not propose any 
changes to previous BC positions.   Instead, the attached comment applies prior 
BC positions to 4 aspects of the proposed new registry agreement:

Specification 11: Public Interest Commitments

Base Agreement Article 4: Transition of Registry upon termination of Agreement

Base Agreement Article 7: Amendments to the Registry Agreement

Specification 5: Reserving Country and Territory Names at the Second Level

These comments are based upon prior positions adopted by the BC in accordance 
with its charter. Three BC position documents are cited here:

Implementation Improvements request to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO, 
Feb-2012  
(link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implementation%20improvements.pdf>)

BC Comments on New gTLD Applicant Guidebook – April 2011 Discussion Draft, 
May-2011  
(link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2011+v3.pdf>)

BC Position on Process for Amendments to new gTLD Registry Agreements, Apr-2010 
(link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_TLD_contract_amendments.pdf>)

We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 19-Mar and plan to submit 
on 20-Mar.  In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting since the BC 
is not taking any new positions in this draft.

However, if 10% of BC membership proposes written changes to the prior 
positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider changing the BC 
position.  Any vote to change would require a majority vote of BC members.   
(see Charter section 7.3)

--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482

<BC Comment on new gTLD Registry Agreement [v1].docx>