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

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Mon May 9 13:34:08 UTC 2011

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

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

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:08 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org 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.


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110509/4553011f/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list