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

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Wed May 4 19:15:45 UTC 2011

What specific requirements are we talking about?

 If it is rights protections mechanisms for new gTLDs then ICA would be opposed to applying them to .net at this time. As most of the TM protections for new gTLDs operate pre-launch, the principal one we are talking about would be URS. As there is no final Guidebook I don't know what its final criteria are or who he arbitration providers will be or whether the anti-complainant abuse provisions will be effective, all I know is that it's a $300, 500-word complaint with a 14-day registrant response time. I think before owners of valuable .net (and .com, assuming that what's done with .net sets precedent for .com) domains should be subject to URS before we have considerable experience with its operation.

Besides, my recollection is that the RAPWG did not recommend that new gTLD rights protection mechanisms be applied to incumbents until we had some experience with them. And we may well embark on a UDRP reform effort in Singapore and should not prejudice what it comes up with my creating new facts before there's been some careful consideration.

So again, what specific requirements are we talking about?

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004




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

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] on behalf of Philip Sheppard [philip.sheppard at aim.be]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:45 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

I think this reads well.
I would strengthen our fundamental point about equal treatment in the opening paragraph.
While the BC generally supports the renewal of the .NET registry agreement including Verisign’s requested changes, the BC recommends that the .NET registry adhere to selected requirements mandated by the new gTLD Program.

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.

Specific requirements of interest to the BC are the following ....


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3613 - Release Date: 05/03/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110504/680d78ca/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list