Still think a call with BC might be worthy for this and many other reasons... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 15 July 2010 23:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thank you for the document, Cheryl.
I deplore that, after the work the IRT has done, and the compromise which the STI-WG has painfully but proudly achieved, BC has come back to its starting point on many of the details of the URS, TM Clearinghouse and PDDRP.
Whilst some of the points which BC have developed in their comment actually make sense (and I recall Zahid Jamil + I agreeing on, because they made sense), I am surprised that the BC is still proceeding forward with "marks within", and various guises of similarity (and now translation?!?) - which were strictly rejected (and quite rightly so) by the majority of the STI-WG because they were unreasonable.
That said - the section about communities is one which looks interesting and might need further study.
Kind regards,
Olivier
Le 14/07/2010 00:22, Cheryl Langdon-Orr a écrit :
Hello all...
In my emails today I have received these DAG v4 Public Comments from GNSO BC constituency for our information and possible action, (you will remember the BC reached out to us previously re DAG 3 and what they felt might be mutual concerns and interest points) which I am passing on to both the ALAC for their consideration and to this end will have an Agenda Item set for say 10-15 mins discussion on DAG4 and new gTLD matters at our July Meeting and of course for the consideration and possible action by our new gTLD WG (should this WG have any contributions on this or other DAG4 matters by our meeting that would be appreciated and we can also set some time aside to hear from any Members present at the meeting as well.
Evan can you let me know if there is anything we can do to facilitate the WG's activities on this => perhaps set up a call with some members of the BC etc., ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Andruff <ra@dotsportllc.com> <ra@dotsportllc.com> Date: 14 July 2010 01:01 Subject: DAG v4 Public Comments To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> <langdonorr@gmail.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>, "Steven J. Metalitz" <met@msk.com> <met@msk.com>
Dear all,
As you know the BC, in large measure driven by me in this case, took issue with four aspects of DAGv3, namely:
· 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
The entire BC comment is attached for your ease of reference.
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 the BC’s other three comments were wholly ignored by staff.
I have spoken with each of you along this path to new gTLDs on various occasions about these issues, Steve has taken up the mantle with me most recently in Brussels regarding Comparative Evaluation Scoring, but we need your so/constituencies to weigh in as well. I know that there was some timing difficulties in your getting positions out the last comment period, so I am hopeful that you can pick up on these important issues this time around.
Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to assist you in supporting these important issues.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Kind regards,
RA
Ron Andruff
President & CEO
dotSport LLC
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+1 212 481-2820 ext. 11
Visit us at: www.dotSportLLC.com
*Click **here* <http://www.dotsportllc.com/index.php?pageId=27> <http://www.dotsportllc.com/index.php?pageId=27>* for dotSportLLC's latest update!*
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html