Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position on the current IRTP draft?
subject says it all. IRTP-B is in public-comments. does the BC have a view? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Dear all, I wanted to bring to the attention of the BC members that the DAGv4 Public Comment period is coming to a close Wednesday, in one week (July 21st). We commented on four aspects in our post regarding DAGv3 (found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-guide/msg00147.html ), to whit: * 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 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 our other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I would submit to the members that we need to repost our comments with some stronger language to ensure that staff hear and react to the BC's concerns. Whatever happens, we have one week to submit our comments. Comments/thoughts? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position on the current IRTP draft? subject says it all. IRTP-B is in public-comments. does the BC have a view? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Thanks Ron. I think it would be helpful for the BC to weigh-in. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:50 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period ends in 8-days Importance: High Dear all, I wanted to bring to the attention of the BC members that the DAGv4 Public Comment period is coming to a close Wednesday, in one week (July 21st). We commented on four aspects in our post regarding DAGv3 (found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-guide/msg00147.html ), to whit: * 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 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 our other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I would submit to the members that we need to repost our comments with some stronger language to ensure that staff hear and react to the BC's concerns. Whatever happens, we have one week to submit our comments. Comments/thoughts? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position on the current IRTP draft? subject says it all. IRTP-B is in public-comments. does the BC have a view? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
BC, . DAGv4 Comment - I wish I could contribute, but I have not had the time to deep-dive in to v4. Therefore I am not a good candidate to assist in write-up. My personal opinion at this point is that we are very close to a final draft, without detailed consideration for the topics Ron brought up below. . ITRP Comment - I have been involved with this WG, but not to the degree that Mikey has. I will happily assist in a BC position write-up, but I must first lean on Mikey. (sorry Mikey, I know you are in the throes of VI). . PEDNER - I have also been very active with this WG. To share the workload, I will take lead on developing a position paper. There are a few recommendations that I feel it will be important for the BC to support, but far from all recommendations that are offered in the latest initial report. Many recommendation will most likely become "best practices." The biggest recommendation for us to support will be a possible consensus policy on the RGP (Redemption Grace Period). More to come. Thank you! B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:50 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period ends in 8-days Importance: High Dear all, I wanted to bring to the attention of the BC members that the DAGv4 Public Comment period is coming to a close Wednesday, in one week (July 21st). We commented on four aspects in our post regarding DAGv3 (found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-guide/msg00147.html ), to whit: . 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 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 our other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I would submit to the members that we need to repost our comments with some stronger language to ensure that staff hear and react to the BC's concerns. Whatever happens, we have one week to submit our comments. Comments/thoughts? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position on the current IRTP draft? subject says it all. IRTP-B is in public-comments. does the BC have a view? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
I would support filing comments on the DAG 4 if there is enough time. I'm happy to work with others on this to meet the deadline as we are in the process of preparing our own comments. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:50 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period ends in 8-days Importance: High Dear all, I wanted to bring to the attention of the BC members that the DAGv4 Public Comment period is coming to a close Wednesday, in one week (July 21st). We commented on four aspects in our post regarding DAGv3 (found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/3gtld-guide/msg00147.html ), to whit: * 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 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 our other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I would submit to the members that we need to repost our comments with some stronger language to ensure that staff hear and react to the BC's concerns. Whatever happens, we have one week to submit our comments. Comments/thoughts? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:09 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy question -- does the BC want to develop a position on the current IRTP draft? subject says it all. IRTP-B is in public-comments. does the BC have a view? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
AIM has just sent the attached to public comments (for the appropriate module). The key proposal is to radically change the URS back to a means to prevent crime (and to rely on the UDRP for any contested rights). BC support would be most helpful. Philip
The notion that the URS be focused on criminal behavior, rather than rights infringement, is an intriguing one. What a different debate we would have had if it had been proposed by the IRT with that aim. That said, I believe that such a crime-focused URS should only allow for certain types of complainants (law enforcement agencies; organizations that monitor Internet fraud and abuse; etc.) to file complaints. Do we really have time to develop such an alternative for the BC when the filing deadline is one week from today and when many of us (including yours truly) are working on multiple comment letters to be filed this month for clients/employers? Beyond that, ICA would object to any BC statement that would seek to revive the original URS and believe that, given the passage of time and events, any BC statement should be put to vote and not based upon positions that were taken many, many months ago. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 5:10 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] DAGv4 Public Comment Period AIM has just sent the attached to public comments (for the appropriate module). The key proposal is to radically change the URS back to a means to prevent crime (and to rely on the UDRP for any contested rights). BC support would be most helpful. Philip
participants (7)
-
Berry Cobb -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Fares, David -
Mike O'Connor -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff