thanks all. Good work going on here in the discussions and exchanges of views. Steve and I will be discussing a process to get to a BC outcome. . Everyone's work and focus on this is much appreciated. I know this is busy times and our members have diverse views in some cases, but in others, I think we have common ground. I do want to make one comment. The BC has a position of supporting managed, responsible introduction of gTLDs [and IDNs] that expand the names space in a differentiated manner. We also have a position about ICANN acting responsibly. I have seen a few comments from BC members that seem to indicate a concern that the BC opposes the expansion of new gTLDs. Our position is much more responsible than that, but it does include addressing the challenges of expansion of the gTLD space. So, just to assure members who thought that there was a rewrite of the BC position on expansion, I don't see that in the comments. However, I appreciate the concern about tone and I think that is being addressed. Stay tuned for a suggested approach after I talk with Steve, as V.Chair, Policy Coordination. Marilyn CadeBC Chair From: cgmartin@uscib.org To: jon@nevett.net; zahid@dndrc.com CC: sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; pcorwin@butera-andrews.com; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:57:57 -0400 Subject: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Hi all. USCIB is currently in the process of drafting our own DAG4 input, and so we cannot comment directly on substantive language at this time. However, on RPMs, USCIB generally supported the IRT’s recommendations. Many of the BC’s comments in the current draft(s) reflect the fact that the current DAG does not contain the thrust of those recommendations and thus we support language drawing attention to those failings and many of the suggested remedies, including much of what is said on mechanisms like URS and the Trademark Clearinghouse. We stand by the incorporation of these items and language supporting the general thrust of the IRT recommendations in the BC comments. On tone of the document, I agree that some language from the original draft could be shifted to more positively construe our input. I think Jon’s edits do a pretty good job in terms of changing the tone (again, no comment directly on the substantive language used except for above). Cheers, Chris From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 9:40 PM To: Zahid Jamil Cc: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Phil Corwin'; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4 Folks: Attached is a suggested redraft to bridge the gap. I personally don't agree with some of the arguments I left in the attached, but I tried to keep the longstanding BC positions while toning down the anti-TLD language. I also deleted a couple of the arguments that were objected to in some of the notes I reviewed. Here are some of the highlights: *I deleted the GPML section. *I deleted the clear and convincing evidence issue with regard to the URS. As a member of the IRT, I can say that it clearly was our intent for the URS to have a higher burden of proof than the UDRP -- the legal standard is exactly the same. We wanted the URS to be for "slam dunk" cases. The URS was to be a less expensive alternative to the UDRP cognizant of the fact that 70% of UDRPs go unanswered. Has this issue even been raised before by the BC? *Based on Sarah's helpful e-mail, I left alone the complaint about transferring names after a successful URS as that has been an issue that Zahid, Mike and others in the BC have argued consistently. I do note, however, that transfer was not in the IRT recommendation and the STI agreed to add a year to the registration at the request of the complainant as a compromise. *Again based on Sarah's e-mail, I left the PDDRP section pretty much alone except for an argument about registries warehousing names, but not using them, as that argument didn't make much sense to me. That's exactly the function of a registry to warehouse names until they are sold by registrars. If a registry "reserves" a name and it is not in use at all, the mark holder should be thrilled that it can't be registered by a squatter. *I also deleted the paragraph about the Director of Compliance. I don't think it appropriate to comment on those kinds of personnel matters. *I didn't touch the arguments related to community and 13 points (though I personally favor 14 points to avoid gaming -- sorry Ron), as that seems to be longstanding BC position. *I didn't do much on the Market Differentiation section either other than soften some of the language. I have no idea if my attempt will get consensus or not, but I thought it worthwhile to offer alternative language and I tried hard to find a balance. Thanks. Jon