Thanks Ron and Sarah for creating this draft. I support
it, except for the section on GPML which I think should be removed as it is
truly a dead issue with no hope of revival. Even the IRT proposal was worthless
to brandowners as it was so limited, only to the biggest brands and only wrt one
identical string per brand.
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Andruff
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 7:21 AM
To: bc-GNSO@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
Importance: High
Dear Members,
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.
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...
Thanks in
advance for your soonest input.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald
N. Andruff
President
RNA
Partners, Inc.
220
+
1 212 481 2820 ext. 11