<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jon,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thank you for the redraft and to others
that have prepared the comments.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I echo Sarah's comments regarding the
different perspectives of our members and I obviously sympathise with major
brand-owners that deal day-in, day-out with brand abuse and fraud that
targets consumers. I support the comments drafted by Ron and Sarah
but would be prepared to endorse Jon's latest revision if there was strong
consensus amongst the BC.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Martin<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="Arial"><b>Martin C SUTTON</b> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=red face="Arial">Group Risk </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ<br>
Group Security & Fraud Risk<br>
8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom</font>
<br><font size=1 color=red face="Arial">________________________________________________________________<br>
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Phone. +44 (0)20
7991 8074 / 7991 8074</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Mobile. +44 (0)
7774556680</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#4f4f4f face="Arial">Email.
</font><a href=mailto:martinsutton@hsbc.com><font size=1 color=red face="Arial"><u>martinsutton@hsbc.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 color=red face="Arial">________________________________________________________________</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=41%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Jon Nevett <jon@nevett.net></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Jul 19 2010 08:29</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#808080 face="sans-serif"><b>Mail Size: 198251</b></font>
<br>
<td width=58%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>,
"'Phil Corwin'" <pcorwin@butera-andrews.com>, <michaelc@traveler.com>,
<mike@haven2.com>, <jb7454@att.com>, <randruff@rnapartners.com>,
<ffelman@markmonitor.com>, <bc-GNSO@icann.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Entity</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="Default MultiLingual"> </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">HSBC
Holdings plc - GMO</font></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Folks:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge the gap. I
personally don't agree with some of the arguments I left in the attached,
but I tried to keep the longstanding BC positions while toning down the
anti-TLD language. I also deleted a couple of the arguments that
were objected to in some of the notes I reviewed.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Here are some of the highlights:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*I deleted the GPML section.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with
regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly
was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than
the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the
URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less
expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs
go unanswered. Has this issue even been raised before by the BC?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left alone the complaint
about transferring names after a successful URS as that has been an issue
that Zahid, Mike and others in the BC have argued consistently. I
do note, however, that transfer was not in the IRT recommendation and the
STI agreed to add a year to the registration at the request of the complainant
as a compromise. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the PDDRP section
pretty much alone except for an argument about registries warehousing names,
but not using them, as that argument didn't make much sense to me. That's
exactly the function of a registry to warehouse names until they are sold
by registrars. If a registry "reserves" a name and it is
not in use at all, the mark holder should be thrilled that it can't be
registered by a squatter.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance.
I don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel
matters. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*I didn't touch the arguments related to community and
13 points (though I personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming -- sorry
Ron), as that seems to be longstanding BC position.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>*I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section
either other than soften some of the language.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>I have no idea if my attempt will get consensus or not,
but I thought it worthwhile to offer alternative language and I tried hard
to find a balance. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Thanks.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Jon</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[attachment "DRAFDT BC Pub Comm
DAGv4 - (SD-RA jn).doc" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/GMO/HSBC] </font>
<br><font size=3>On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:22 PM, Zahid Jamil wrote:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Agree absolutely with Sarah’s
comments.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Sincerely,</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Zahid Jamil</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Barrister-at-law</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Jamil & Jamil</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Barristers-at-law</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">219-221 Central Hotel Annexe</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Merewether Road, Karachi.
Pakistan</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Cell: +923008238230</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276
/ 35655025</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Fax: +92 21 35655026</font>
<br><a href=http://www.jamilandjamil.com/><font size=1 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>www.jamilandjamil.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Notice / Disclaimer</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#004080 face="Calibri">This message contains confidential
information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended
recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate,
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately
by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from
your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property
of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information
protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication,
use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts
(including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication)
without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> </font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">
[</font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 face="Tahoma">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Deutsch, Sarah B<b><br>
Sent:</b> 18 July 2010 13:41<b><br>
To:</b> Phil Corwin; </font><a href=mailto:michaelc@traveler.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>michaelc@traveler.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">;
</font><a href=mailto:mike@haven2.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>mike@haven2.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b><br>
Cc:</b> </font><a href=mailto:jb7454@att.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>jb7454@att.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">;
</font><a href=mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>randruff@rnapartners.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">;
</font><a href=mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>ffelman@markmonitor.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">;
</font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">I'm not opposed to polling members
on this issue. I can understand that many of Phil's members who are
in the domain name business may see business opportunities from the introduction
of new gTLDs. They and others who expressed concern do not own a
well known brand or have widespread trademark infringement problems. Those
who object have different business interests and protecting corporate brands
and consumers in the new gTLD spaces is not on their list of priorities.
I respect that.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">However, ICANN designated trademark
protection as one of the overarching issues surrounding the rollout and
pledged that these issues would be adequately addressed in the DAG. I'm
not aware of any major brand owners, including the IPC members participating
on the IRT, who are happy with the diluted trademark protections currently
contained in DAG 4. I would hope even members without trademark concerns,
should respect the interests of BC members who have such concerns and allow
them to express those. Our BC GNSO councilors have consistently advocated
for these protections on our behalf. The BC already submitted consistent
comments in the past, including on DAG 3. Ron tried to keep much of the
DAG 4 comments identical to the language to the DAG 3 draft. I'm
sure Ron is open to receiving additional constructive edits on tone and
substance (e.g., Mike R's helpful suggestion to delete reference to the
GPML since that appears to be dead in the water).</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">I'm hopeful that we can find a consructive
way to move forward given the importance of this issue to so many BC members.
We've heard from those raising concerns, but we've also heard from
AT&T, News Corp, Mike Rodenbaugh, NetChoice, Verizon and RNA Partners
weighing in supporting the comments. I would urge others to weigh
in on this as well.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"><br>
Sarah</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
</font><font size=2 color=#000080 face="Arial"><br>
Sarah B. Deutsch <br>
Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>
Verizon Communications <br>
Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>
Fax: 703-351-3670</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> </font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">
[</font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=2 face="Tahoma">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Phil Corwin<b><br>
Sent:</b> Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:48 PM<b><br>
To:</b> </font><a href="mailto:'michaelc@traveler.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'michaelc@traveler.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">';
</font><a href="mailto:'mike@haven2.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'mike@haven2.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">'<b><br>
Cc:</b> </font><a href="mailto:'jb7454@att.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'jb7454@att.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">';
</font><a href="mailto:'randruff@rnapartners.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'randruff@rnapartners.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">';
</font><a href="mailto:'ffelman@markmonitor.com"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'ffelman@markmonitor.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">';
</font><a href="mailto:'bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>'bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">'<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Given the diversity of opinion
within the BC, as well as the fact that other members appear to have broader
concerns than those I raised, I would again suggest that a poll should
be taken of BC members to take the Constituency's temperature and determine
if there is any consensus for the proposed position statement. <br>
Philip S. Corwin <br>
Partner, Butera & Andrews <br>
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW <br>
Suite 500 <br>
Washington, DC 20004 <br>
2026635347/Office <br>
2022556172/Cell <br>
<br>
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey </font><font size=1 face="Courier New"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From</b>: Michael Castello [</font><a href=mailto:michaelc@traveler.com><font size=2 face="Tahoma">mailto:michaelc@traveler.com</font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">]
<b><br>
Sent</b>: Saturday, July 17, 2010 07:04 PM<b><br>
To</b>: Mike O'Connor <</font><a href=mailto:mike@haven2.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>mike@haven2.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">>
<b><br>
Cc</b>: Phil Corwin; BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) <</font><a href=mailto:jb7454@att.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>jb7454@att.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">>;
Ron Andruff <</font><a href=mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>randruff@rnapartners.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">>;
frederick felman <</font><a href=mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>ffelman@markmonitor.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">>;
</font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">
<</font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=2 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Tahoma">>
<b><br>
Subject</b>: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 </font><font size=1 face="Courier New"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">I agree with both Phil and Mikey. There
was certainly a lot of freedom early on with the internet and closing ranks
on the concerns of trademark holders and new entities were, over time,
clearly needed. The name space was allowed to flourish because it was so
available to everyone. We need to make sure that these regulations, while
needed, do not become too cumbersome to new participants. Everyone needs
to be invited to the party. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">Michael Castello</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">CEO/President</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</font>
<br><a href=http://www.ccin.com/><font size=1 color=blue face="Courier New"><u>http://www.ccin.com</u></font></a>
<br><a href=mailto:michael@ccin.com><font size=1 color=blue face="Courier New"><u>michael@ccin.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">--</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">Saturday, July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM,
you wrote:</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=blue>
<td bgcolor=white><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">i am in Phil's camp on this.
several years ago i started referring to myself as "a member
of the business wing of the Business Constituency" just to make it
clear that i'm not keen on our strident views with regard to rights protections
and cyber-security. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">of course cyber-crime is important, but
folks like Bruce Schneier make an extremely compelling case that there
needs to be a culture of security in which all participants are active
and aware rather than creating a culture of passive consumers being "protected"
by ever-increasingly intrusive "authorities" like governments
and ICANN. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">of course trademark violations are unacceptable
-- but to make this our signature issue, to take our position beyond even
those of the IPC, and leaving *small* business owners defenseless in the
face of large corporate brand-owners, leaves me continuing to feel disenfranchised
(much the way i feel disenfranchised by the extreme politics in my country
-- where the heck do moderates hang out??). </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">i would love to see the BC develop a positive
message (based on positive positions) that truly reflect the needs of businesses
large and small rather than recycling these views from our reactionary
past. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">i would also love to get out of the continuing
role of being an apologist for our somewhat quirky positions. haarrrumph!
:-)</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">so, just to be on record, i do not support
these comments on DAGv4.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">sorry about the rant. thanks for
taking the time to craft these notes Phil,</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">mikey</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Phil Corwin
wrote:</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Ron (and other BC members who contacted
me to ask that I provide alternative URS language):</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">I appreciate the request, as I appreciate
the hard work put in by Ron and Sarah on the draft.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">That said, a few word changes will not suffice
to alter ICA's dissent, as we have an entirely different perspective. We
represent individuals and companies with substantial investments in domain
portfolios. They view domains in the same way that most of you (and we)
view trademarks -- as an intangible asset with substantial value. When
a trademark rights protection is proposed it might be useful to ask whether
you would be willing to have one of your trademarks suspended, or forfeited,
on the basis of what is on the table. If not, then don't expect registrants
to embrace it. In no way do we condone trademark infringement, but proposed
responses to it need to assure basic due process.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">If a majority wills it then the BC is within
its rights to proffer a reworking of the same positions it has articulated
on prior occasions, and it should expect essentially the same results --
especially after BC members participated in an STI process that reworked
the IRTrecommendations, and the STI's work was embraced by the GNSO and
approved by the Board. If ICANN staff have significantly altered the STI's
consensus recommendations then that certainly should be raised, but otherwise
the rights protections for new gTLDs have been pretty much baked into the
DAG. Does anyone really think they will be reopened in any significant
way?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">As regards the specifics of the URS provision,
we cannot agree that the URS should have the same substantive standard
as the UDRP. The URS was proposed by the IRT as reserved for "obvious",
"no brainer" rights disputes, and was originally proposed with
a higher evidentiary standard to distinguish URS cases from UDRPs. We don't
think the BC's credibility on trademark matters is enhanced when it consistently
articulates a harder line than that of the IPC, which conceived of and
oversaw the IRT. As for urging that the URS lead to a domain transfer and
not just a suspension -- again, this goes beyond the IRT recommendation
and would likewise blur the distinction between the URS and UDRP.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Finally, we find the discussion of the "impact"
test for a finding of RDNH in the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe
that if a complainant advances deliberate falsehoods with the intent of
having a favorable impact on its complaint then it is clearly guilty of
attempting to abuse the available system.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Beyond the URS, our only other comment on
the rights protection language is to note our strong questioning of a TM
Clearinghouse regime in which an "identical match" is defined
as "typographical variations". Identical means identical, not
variations. Variations to what degree? Having a trademark in one word doesn't
provide a right to fire warning shots at tens of thousands of possible
variants of that word, multiple degrees of separation away from it. If
you're going to propose that variations be encompassed then it really is
incumbent to articulate some defining limits on that notion - "we
know it when we see it" is really not adequate assurance for registrants.
And, of course, these issues become even more problematic for dictionary
words that are trademarked for various purposes. Please let's remember
that in most instances infringement can't just be determined by the name
of a domain but requires a look at how it is being used.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Finally, to note an area of agreement --
we share the concern that ICANN devotes inadequate resources to compliance,
and indeed in Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a meaningful
portion of revenues from new gTLD applications to that end.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Summing up, we would have to oppose the
URS regime that the majority of the BC seems to favor as providing inadequate
assurance of due process to registrants, and we think the overall position
on rights protection is backwards looking given that the STI train has
left the station. Again, this does not mean we are unsympathetic to the
concerns of rights holders. Throughout the past 18 months we have advocated
comprehensive UDRP reform that would address the concerns of all parties
across the entire gTLD space, and we continue to believe that a good faith
collaboration could produce positive changes that could be put in place
in tandem with the opening of new gTLDs.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Regards to all,</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma">Philip</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">Philip S. Corwin </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">Partner </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">Butera & Andrews
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">1301 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">Suite 500 </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">Washington, DC 20004</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">202-347-6875 (office)
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">202-347-6876 (fax</font><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial">)</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black">202-255-6172 (cell)</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#000080 face="Arial Black"><i>"Luck is the
residue of design."</i> -- Branch Rickey</font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> </font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=1 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=1 face="Tahoma">
[owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) [jb7454@att.com]</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 3:36
PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>To:</b> Ron Andruff; frederick felman;
</font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=1 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Thanks Ron and Sarah. AT&T
supports filing comments and I like how you’ve updated them. While
I was not involved in the original BC comments, I would note that you could
add a reference to the recommendation in the Economic Study that it may
be wise for ICANC to continue its practice of introducing new gTLDs in
discrete, limited rounds. </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">Jeff Brueggeman</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">AT&T Public Policy</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#004080 face="Calibri">(202) 457-2064</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> </font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=1 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</u></font></a><font size=1 face="Tahoma">
[</font><a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org"><font size=1 face="Tahoma">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</font></a><font size=1 face="Tahoma">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ron Andruff</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 12:34
PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>To:</b> 'frederick felman'; </font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=1 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Arial">Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM
for your notes of support for the circulated draft.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Arial">I encourage other members to give
the doc a quick read. While it is several pages long, please note
that it is the same document we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking
is for you to review the redlines and give your comments/amendments.
To that end, Phil Corwin, can you send your suggested URS text asap?</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Arial">Thanks again everyone for taking
a moment to review the DAGv4 draft comments.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Arial">RA</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">Ronald N. Andruff</font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">President</font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">RNA Partners, Inc.</font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">220 Fifth Avenue</font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">New York, New York 10001</font>
<br><font size=1 color=blue face="Arial">+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr noshade></div>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> frederick felman [</font><a href=mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com><font size=1 face="Tahoma">mailto:ffelman@markmonitor.com</font></a><font size=1 face="Tahoma">]
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 16, 2010 12:21
PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>To:</b> Ron Andruff; </font><a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org"><font size=1 color=blue face="Tahoma"><u>bc-GNSO@icann.org</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public
Comments on DAGv4</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"><b>Importance:</b> High</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">MarkMonitor support the BC comments to
DAGv4.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">On 7/15/10 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff"
<</font><a href=https://exchange.sierracorporation.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx><font size=2 color=blue face="Calibri"><u>randruff@rnapartners.com</u></font></a><font size=2 face="Calibri">>
wrote:</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">Dear Members,</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">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.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">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...</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">Thanks in advance for your soonest input.
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">Kind regards,</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Arial">RA</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">Ronald N. Andruff</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">President</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">RNA Partners, Inc.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">220 Fifth Avenue</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">New York, New York 10001</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial">+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Tahoma"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">- - - - - - - - -</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">phone 651-647-6109 </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">fax 866-280-2356 </font>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">web </font><a href=http://www.haven2.com/><font size=1 color=blue face="Segoe UI"><u>http://www.haven2.com</u></font></a>
<br><font size=1 face="Segoe UI">handle OConnorStP (ID for public places
like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</font></table>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
************************************************************<br>
HSBC Holdings plc<br>
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom<br>
Registered in England number 617987<br>
************************************************************<br>
</font>
-----------------------------------------
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you
may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have
received this message in error, please delete it and all copies
from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
E-mail.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure,
error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions.