My concern is that by includng the words "contract" this will be misread by ICANN as a green light to go forward with regulation having nothing to do with these parties' qualifications even if the idea of an "other mechanism" is also included as an option.

The following language addresses my concern but keeps the same meaning Phil originally intended:

The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements with all accredited providers a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities.

In the rest of the document, I'd recommend replacing "contact" with "standard mechanism."

Thanks,

Sarah

Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670

From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:29 AM
To: 'Phil Corwin'; Deutsch, Sarah B; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers

I share Sarah's concern but agree with Phil that our current language is flexible:

The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or develops some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. (emphasis added)

Philip