This is a LAST CALL on a comment we discussed on our last 2 calls and in several emails. ICANN posted the working group Draft Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (comment period closes 1-Nov) The attached document includes draft BC positions on the WG recommendations, based on assessment by Elisa Cooper and Steve DelBianco. This was first circulated to BC members on 3-October. (see below) I will submit this comment tomorrow, 1-Nov-2013, unless more than 5 members object to this comment by COB EST tomorrow. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2013 1:54 PM To: "bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Policy calendar for 4-Oct-2013 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for Friday's BC call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: 3. Draft Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (initial comments due 11-Oct) The attached document includes draft BC positions on the WG recommendations, based on assessment by Elisa Cooper and Steve DelBianco. (shows in grey tex at bottom of each table row. e.g. "CBUC: Support" ) Thru page 9, we said "Support" based on previous BC positions and our support for TM Clearinghouse improvements to help "brands" --incl IGOs/INGOs-- at the second level. The tricky part is how to protect acronyms for groups other than Red Cross and Olympics, starting on page 10. There are several hundred acronyms to consider (link<http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf>). e.g., CAN, ISO, SCO, IFC, ECO. The WG proposal is to place all these in the Guidebook as "ineligible for delegation". The attached draft says this is too hard a line and would prefer these orgs use Rights Objection mechanism to stop a TLD application they oppose. If their objection failed, we have seen how the GAC could exercise its power of Advice to stop a TLD, too. Please review and indicate your agreement or objection to the attached draft positions by 6-October. Then we need a volunteer to draft the text of our comments — based on whatever recommendations are approved. Thus far, 8 BC members signaled support for the draft position. (Elisa, Steve, Stephane, Rodenbaugh, Yahoo, Chris Chaplow, Google, Phil Corwin ) Marilyn Cade does not agree with "a blanket statement of objection", although that's not what this draft position would entail.