Beau, I don't see any reason not to, but one or more of those he makes his case to could read his 48pp paper. It is in my reading queue, but not at the top. A concern I have that I didn't think should, by itself, be sufficient to embark upon a PDP (not that my thoughts one way or another have any influence over the members of the GNSO Council) was distinguishing the application of this DRP as a means to protect the marks holders interests in preventing dillution -- the "kleenex" effect, and its application as a means to protect the marks holders interest in suppressing speech critical of their brands, and its application as a means to protect the marks holders interests in influencing search engine outcomes. That is, the UDRP was intended to provide an equitable, efficient means to prevent dillution injury, to marks holders, and to third parties (aka "consumers") who use marks to identifiy benefits with manufacturers. The UDRP is now also used to provide a means to prevent market injury, to marks holders, by third parties (aka "consumers") who use marks to harms with manufacturers. The UDRP is also now used to provide a means to create market value, to marks holders, by third parties (aka "advertizers") who use marks to monitize suppressed NXDOMAIN returns to resolvers. George Kirkos identified the second concern, the "free speech" issue. Domainers, domain tasting, and Sitefinder (wildcarding) and its follow ons, are the third issue. Both can be addressed without radical revision of the original, and reasonably well implemented first purpose. But neither should be ignored, and a jurisdictional proposal arising from a correlation may miss actual causation, and simply advance a jurisdictionally limited "public interest" theory in place of a "public interest" both jurisdictionally dependent, and jurisdictionally independent. I think the ALAC purpose is to attempt to find the jurisdictionally independent public interest, and the GAC's purpose is to attempt to find the jurisdictionally dependent public interest. In writing a draft proposed ALAC response to the Initial Issues Report by ICANN Staff on the UDRP, I proposed no PDP at the present time, but the inclusion of the "free speech" issue among those to be considered by a small group of experts looking at implementation improvements, as proposed by ICANN Staff. Again, I've not read his paper, or his prior scholarship on things ICANN-esque (routed data network policy) or similar (switched voice network policy). An excellent review of the third issue is in Tyler Moore and Ben Edelman's 2010 paper "Measuring the Perpetrators and Funders of Typosquatting", proceeding of the 14th Int. Conf. on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. It introduces the issue with the registration of kaplan.com in 1994 by Kaplan's competitor Princeton Review and proceeds to cybersquatting generally as an economic activity. Eric