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

On 15/07/2010 21:57, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote :

Still think a call with BC might be worthy for this and many other reasons...

Definitely, but like Evan, I think we need a really clear agenda. I think that we can all work together towards a common goal - we have to, because the "alternative" to ICANN is too ugly to even think of. That said, we also have to *listen* to each other, and attempt to understand each other's concerns. Perhaps that could be a first step. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

On 15 July 2010 09:42, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

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.

Indeed. They constantly refer back to the IRT report as if it *hadn't* been soundly rejected by the rest of the community despite a high-pressure sales job in Sydney during which opposing the IRT was akin to supporting child porn. It is also deplorable that they refer to the existing IP components of the DAG as a "staff proposal" rather than a broader community consensus. This IMO is deliberate obfuscation intended to confuse the reader, bordering on deception.

That said - the section about communities is one which looks interesting and might need further study.

To an extent, that study already is underway. Issues related to the link between a community and its gTLD application have come up during some of the MAPO discussions, where we are finding out what the GAC *really* wants from (the unfortunate evolution of) this process. I shared the gaming concerns behind the rationale in the current DAG that keeps the threshold higher than the BC would like, and the MAPO-related discussions are confirming these concerns.

(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., ?

Well, time and human cycles are not unlimited and right and the gTLD group already has two specific issues that it is addressing with other constituencies: 1) the joint SO/AC committee that is working on ways to reduce costs for communities in developing economies while maintaining the GNSO mandate of cost recovery. We had a very successful workshop in Brussels and are moving towards some recommendations that, I believe, will find broad ICANN stakeholder support. 2) a continuation of the VERY productive work with the GAC on the replacement (yes, *replacement*) of the sections in the DAG regarding Morality and Public Order (MAPO). The GAC is apparently going to recommend soon a working group based on the MAPO-related meeting held in Nairiobi (attended, I believe by myself, Sébastien, Alan and Carlton as well as four GAC members). The GAC members have been very impressed by the ALAC engagement on this issue and want to move forward with us and "perhaps some others". It is noteworthy that the GAC has so far declined to participate in the "joint SO/AC" group formed by the GNSO for this purpose, but instead want something patterned after what we did in Nairobi. Conversations to make this happen are moving forward rapidly -- stay tuned. While the gTLD working group has always been open to anyone who has an interest, I note that there is *nobody* from the BC participating in either of the above two initiatives, so its interest in issues that matter to us seem marginal at best. The BC's main concern about communities (that the bar is too high to be identified as a community group) is nowhere near our identified concerns (that the cost of entry is too high, especially in developing economies). Based on its submission on the DAG it appears that the BC wants to turn back the clock to re-introduce recommendations that ALAC and others fought hard to reject. So given that I prefer not to hold meetings that waste my time (as well as that of other WG members), could someone describe exactly what a call with the BC is supposed to accomplish at this time? What would the agenda be? For us to ask them why they keep fighting against the public interest? How is such a meeting a better use of our scarce time than increased engagement with stakeholders with which we share *identified* common interest, on specific issues that matter deeply to us, and upon which we can have a real impact? In the meantime, I agree with Olivier that we might take the opportunity re-examine the community point system.It's been a long time since we looked at it and I don't recall anyone having a problem with what was in the DAG when it was first examined. Olivier, do you have the time and inclination to help with that? Anyone else? Depending on the results of that we might have something to discuss with the BC. - Evan