[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4

Mike Rodenbaugh icann at rodenbaugh.com
Fri Jul 16 17:18:07 UTC 2010

Thanks Ron and Sarah for creating this draft.  I support it, except for the
section on GPML which I think should be removed as it is truly a dead issue
with no hope of revival.  Even the IRT proposal was worthless to brandowners
as it was so limited, only to the biggest brands and only wrt one identical
string per brand.


Mike Rodenbaugh


tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com


From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:21 AM
To: bc-GNSO at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
Importance: High


Dear Members,


Further to my reminder earlier this week regarding the need for a BC public
comment on DAGv4, Sarah Deutsch and I have developed a draft for member
review and comment.  Effectively, we have taken the BC's DAGv3 comments and
added/amended based on (1) staff having largely ignored our comments in
DAGv2 and v3; and (2) utilized subsequent information that has come
available in the interim (e.g., the latest economic study). FYI, Sarah
drafted the RPM material and I took responsibility for the other elements.


We ask that members review and comment on the document at your earliest
convenience, so that we can meet the submission deadline of Wednesday, July
21st.  Sorry for the late posting, but unfortunately with summer holidays
and all, a few things are slipping between the cracks...


Thanks in advance for your soonest input.  


Kind regards,




Ronald N. Andruff



RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100716/96c12e56/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list