[bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period ends in 8-days

Berry Cobb berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Tue Jul 13 21:14:53 UTC 2010



.         DAGv4 Comment - I wish I could contribute, but I have not had the
time to deep-dive in to v4.  Therefore I am not a good candidate to assist
in write-up.  My personal opinion at this point is that we are very close to
a final draft, without detailed consideration for the topics Ron brought up

.         ITRP Comment - I have been involved with this WG, but not to the
degree that Mikey has.  I will happily assist in a BC position write-up, but
I must first lean on Mikey.  (sorry Mikey, I know you are in the throes of

.         PEDNER - I have also been very active with this WG.  To share the
workload, I will take lead on developing a position paper.  There are a few
recommendations that I feel it will be important for the BC to support, but
far from all recommendations that are offered in the latest initial report.
Many recommendation will most likely become "best practices."  The biggest
recommendation for us to support will be a possible consensus policy on the
RGP (Redemption Grace Period).  More to come.


Thank you!  B



Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb at infinityportals.com




From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:50 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period ends in 8-days
Importance: High


Dear all,


I wanted to bring to the attention of the BC members that the DAGv4 Public
Comment period is coming to a close Wednesday, in one week (July 21st).


We commented on four aspects in our post regarding DAGv3 (found here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-guide/msg00147.html ), to whit: 


.         ICANN Staff Recommendations for Rights Protection Mechanisms


.         Translations of Strings from ASCII to Other Scripts or Languages 


.         Revised Comparative Evaluation Scoring 


.         Market Differentiation Between New gTLDs


While I do not know (and would like to hear from others that are better
informed) what happened with regard to our first issue, RPMs, I do know that
our other three comments were wholly ignored by staff.


I would submit to the members that we need to repost our comments with some
stronger language to ensure that staff hear and react to the BC's concerns.
Whatever happens, we have one week to submit our comments.




Kind regards,




Ronald N. Andruff


RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001


+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position
on the current IRTP draft?



subject says it all.  IRTP-B is in public-comments.  does the BC have a





- - - - - - - - -

phone             651-647-6109  

fax                   866-280-2356  

web     http://www.haven2.com

handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100713/4eb54085/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list