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

[Smith, Bill]

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 at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130320/20608d73/attachment.html>