Hello all, While we continue to engage with other constituencies on issues related to intellectual property, all other components of DAG2 that we found objectionable remain in DAG3 with little change. Among them: - The prohibitive price to would-be community registries - The punitive method of refunds for failed applications - The persistence of a Morality and Public Order clause - The ability to challenge strings based on similar "meaning" to existing ones - New details -- yet new ambiguities -- on the role and capabilities of the Independent Objector Sadly, ICANN staff appears to have ignored each and every issue raised by At-Large. The compendium of public comments ignored us entirely. Indeed, it would be a significant challenge to indicate any change from DAG2 to DAG3 that indicates any influence from the many detailed, positive, well-thought-out recommendations that resulted from Summit WG3. (Aside: It's nice to hear all the positive comments on the Summit, but I would be far happier with fewer platitudes and more consideration of what we actually said.) As demoralizing was the (non) response to our input on DAG2, it is still our duty to respond to DAG3. Perhaps the landscape shifted somewhat after the joint ALAC-NCUC statement on the IRT which (I was told) mortally damaged its claim of broad community support. Perhaps we will be listened to this time. Even so, I would note that the IRT's replacement, the GNSO STI group, has deliberately reduced participation of At-Large. So the vested interests continue to assert that the voice of At-Large is to be marginalized. But we must not be silenced. In crafting a response to DAG3. We have an excellent starting point in our response to DAG2. Who is interested in helping? My intention (as chair of the gTLD WG) is to move further discussion on this issue to that WG's mailing list.(gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org). See you there! - Evan