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.

--------------------------------

NEW

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.