<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[bc-gnso] Re: DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
- To: "Rick Anderson" <randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4
- From: Michael Castello <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:52:57 -0700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>Re: DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family: 'Courier New';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts6, span.rvts6
{
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts8
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
font-weight: bold;
}
span.rvts9
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
}
span.rvts10
{
}
span.rvts11
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts12
{
font-size: 8pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
span.rvts13
{
font-family: 'arial black';
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts14
{
font-family: 'arial black';
font-style: italic;
color: #000080;
}
a.rvts15, span.rvts15
{
font-family: 'tahoma';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts16
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts17
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts18
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts19
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
}
a.rvts20, span.rvts20
{
font-size: 11pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts21
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts22
{
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts23
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
a.rvts24, span.rvts24
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts25
{
font-family: 'times new roman';
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Rick,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>In all due respect your third reason absolutely floored me. The virtual
world will be built by those that take the time, effort and sacrifice to do so.
Dot com (commercial) was the only available gTLD to me and many others like me
in 1994. It was what we had to build upon. ICANN does not determine what the
public chooses or uses. The 1994 Internet, in my circles, was considered a fad.
We could have simply used IPs to navigate and allowed search to do the
workload. What had happened was actually quite beautiful. Average citizens
could find a global distributional channel for ideas and products that used
words to navigate. There was clarity in that a "word" with a dot com. It was
understood as "the Internet". Dot com in itself became a brand. That was
something the general public decided not the DNSO or ICANN. To purposely try to
undo something that was natural will be futile in my opinion. There is a lot of
growth in the name space for the global future. The new gTLDs will offer great
wealth to those that sell, purchase and resell but it remains unseen if the
global community chooses to "build upon" it. I personally think your intentions
would have better served you unsaid. </p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Michael Castello</p>
<p>CEO/President</p>
<p>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com";>http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Sunday, July 18, 2010, 11:55:07 AM, you wrote:</p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=2 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1683>
<p><span class=rvts7>Sarah does a good job of identifying two of the three key
drivers in the gTLD discussion, namely </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>1. The commercial interest of service providers and domain
name investors in having access to a new universe of products to provide and-or
invest in</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>2. The interest of trademark owners in not being subject
to fresh new rounds of defensive registrations and trademark
protection</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>There is a third driver though, and it is the one which
prompts BC members who are not in the domain business to support new
gTLDs:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>3. The need for the ICANN community to dissolve the
perceptual and economic domination of .com in the domain space. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>To some of us, eliminating the .com dominance/monopoly is
the single most important policy challenge facing ICANN. ICANN's practices and
polices have had the (unintended) consequence of creating a near-monopoly, and
an artificial scarcity of supply where none in fact exists, a near-monopoly and
scarcity which distort prices and limit access. We need to fix that, and I at
least have not yet heard a better way to do so than through multiplying
TLDs.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>This is more than a debate between those with a commercial
interest in the domain business vs those with a defensive interest in trademark
protectionism</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>cheers/Rick</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Rick Anderson</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>EVP, Walton Global Investments Ltd</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>cell (403) 830-1798</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>PS: Please note our updated corporate name and email
address</span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p class=rvps1><span class=rvts8>From</span><span class=rvts9>:
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To</span><span class=rvts9>: Phil Corwin ;
michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; mike@xxxxxxxxxx </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Cc</span><span class=rvts9>: jb7454@xxxxxxx ;
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent</span><span class=rvts9>: Sun Jul 18 11:41:13
2010</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject</span><span class=rvts9>: RE: Re[2]: [bc-gnso]
DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>I'm not opposed to polling members on this issue. I
can understand that many of Phil's members who are in the domain name business
may see business opportunities from the introduction of new gTLDs. They
and others who expressed concern do not own a well known brand or have
widespread trademark infringement problems. Those who object have
different business interests and protecting corporate brands and consumers in
the new gTLD spaces is not on their list of priorities. I respect
that.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>However, ICANN designated trademark protection as one of
the overarching issues surrounding the rollout and pledged that these issues
would be adequately addressed in the DAG. I'm not aware of any major
brand owners, including the IPC members participating on the IRT, who are happy
with the diluted trademark protections currently contained in DAG 4. I
would hope even members without trademark concerns, should respect the
interests of BC members who have such concerns and allow them to express those.
Our BC GNSO councilors have consistently advocated for these protections
on our behalf. The BC already submitted consistent comments in the past,
including on DAG 3. Ron tried to keep much of the DAG 4 comments identical to
the language to the DAG 3 draft. I'm sure Ron is open to receiving
additional constructive edits on tone and substance (e.g., Mike R's helpful
suggestion to delete reference to the GPML since that appears to be dead in the
water).</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>I'm hopeful that we can find a consructive way to move
forward given the importance of this issue to so many BC members. We've
heard from those raising concerns, but we've also heard from AT&T, News
Corp, Mike Rodenbaugh, NetChoice, Verizon and RNA Partners weighing in
supporting the comments. I would urge others to weigh in on this as
well.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>Sarah</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Sarah B. Deutsch </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Vice President & Associate General
Counsel </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Verizon Communications </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Phone: 703-351-3044 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Fax: 703-351-3670 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts8>From:</span><span
class=rvts9> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] </span><span class=rvts8>On Behalf
Of </span><span class=rvts9>Phil Corwin</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent:</span><span class=rvts9> Saturday, July 17,
2010 9:48 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To:</span><span class=rvts9> 'michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx';
'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Cc:</span><span class=rvts9> 'jb7454@xxxxxxx';
'randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx';
'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx'</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject:</span><span class=rvts9> Re: Re[2]:
[bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Given the diversity of opinion within the BC, as well as
the fact that other members appear to have broader concerns than those I
raised, I would again suggest that a poll should be taken of BC members to take
the Constituency's temperature and determine if there is any consensus for the
proposed position statement. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Philip S. Corwin </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Partner, Butera & Andrews </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Suite 500 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Washington, DC 20004 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>2026635347/Office </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>2022556172/Cell </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch
Rickey </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>From</span><span class=rvts9>: Michael Castello
[mailto:michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent</span><span class=rvts9>: Saturday, July 17, 2010
07:04 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To</span><span class=rvts9>: Mike O'Connor
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Cc</span><span class=rvts9>: Phil Corwin; BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF
(ATTSI) <jb7454@xxxxxxx>; Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
frederick felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
<bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject</span><span class=rvts9>: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT
BC Public Comments on DAGv4 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>I agree with both Phil and Mikey. There was certainly a
lot of freedom early on with the internet and closing ranks on the concerns of
trademark holders and new entities were, over time, clearly needed. The name
space was allowed to flourish because it was so available to everyone. We need
to make sure that these regulations, while needed, do not become too cumbersome
to new participants. Everyone needs to be invited to the party.
</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>Michael Castello</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>CEO/President</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</span></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com";>http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>--</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>Saturday, July 17, 2010, 5:39:34 AM, you wrote:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=15 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1662>
<p><span class=rvts12>i am in Phil's camp on this. several years ago i
started referring to myself as "a member of the business wing of the Business
Constituency" just to make it clear that i'm not keen on our strident views
with regard to rights protections and cyber-security. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>of course cyber-crime is important, but folks like Bruce
Schneier make an extremely compelling case that there needs to be a culture of
security in which all participants are active and aware rather than creating a
culture of passive consumers being "protected" by ever-increasingly intrusive
"authorities" like governments and ICANN. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>of course trademark violations are unacceptable -- but to
make this our signature issue, to take our position beyond even those of the
IPC, and leaving *small* business owners defenseless in the face of large
corporate brand-owners, leaves me continuing to feel disenfranchised (much the
way i feel disenfranchised by the extreme politics in my country -- where the
heck do moderates hang out??). </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>i would love to see the BC develop a positive message
(based on positive positions) that truly reflect the needs of businesses large
and small rather than recycling these views from our reactionary past.
</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>i would also love to get out of the continuing role of
being an apologist for our somewhat quirky positions. haarrrumph!
:-)</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>so, just to be on record, i do not support these comments
on DAGv4.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>sorry about the rant. thanks for taking the time to
craft these notes Phil,</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>mikey</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts12>On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Ron (and other BC members who contacted me to ask that I
provide alternative URS language):</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>I appreciate the request, as I appreciate the hard work
put in by Ron and Sarah on the draft.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>That said, a few word changes will not suffice to alter
ICA's dissent, as we have an entirely different perspective. We represent
individuals and companies with substantial investments in domain portfolios.
They view domains in the same way that most of you (and we) view trademarks --
as an intangible asset with substantial value. When a trademark rights
protection is proposed it might be useful to ask whether you would be willing
to have one of your trademarks suspended, or forfeited, on the basis of what is
on the table. If not, then don't expect registrants to embrace it. In no way do
we condone trademark infringement, but proposed responses to it need to assure
basic due process.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>If a majority wills it then the BC is within its rights to
proffer a reworking of the same positions it has articulated on prior
occasions, and it should expect essentially the same results -- especially
after BC members participated in an STI process that reworked the
IRTrecommendations, and the STI's work was embraced by the GNSO and approved by
the Board. If ICANN staff have significantly altered the STI's consensus
recommendations then that certainly should be raised, but otherwise the rights
protections for new gTLDs have been pretty much baked into the DAG. Does anyone
really think they will be reopened in any significant way?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>As regards the specifics of the URS provision, we cannot
agree that the URS should have the same substantive standard as the UDRP. The
URS was proposed by the IRT as reserved for "obvious", "no brainer" rights
disputes, and was originally proposed with a higher evidentiary standard to
distinguish URS cases from UDRPs. We don't think the BC's credibility on
trademark matters is enhanced when it consistently articulates a harder line
than that of the IPC, which conceived of and oversaw the IRT. As for urging
that the URS lead to a domain transfer and not just a suspension -- again, this
goes beyond the IRT recommendation and would likewise blur the distinction
between the URS and UDRP.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Finally, we find the discussion of the "impact" test for a
finding of RDNH in the URS to be confusing -- but we do believe that if a
complainant advances deliberate falsehoods with the intent of having a
favorable impact on its complaint then it is clearly guilty of attempting to
abuse the available system.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Beyond the URS, our only other comment on the rights
protection language is to note our strong questioning of a TM Clearinghouse
regime in which an "identical match" is defined as "typographical variations".
Identical means identical, not variations. Variations to what degree? Having a
trademark in one word doesn't provide a right to fire warning shots at tens of
thousands of possible variants of that word, multiple degrees of separation
away from it. If you're going to propose that variations be encompassed then it
really is incumbent to articulate some defining limits on that notion - "we
know it when we see it" is really not adequate assurance for registrants. And,
of course, these issues become even more problematic for dictionary words that
are trademarked for various purposes. Please let's remember that in most
instances infringement can't just be determined by the name of a domain but
requires a look at how it is being used.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Finally, to note an area of agreement -- we share the
concern that ICANN devotes inadequate resources to compliance, and indeed in
Brussels we suggested publicly that it earmark a meaningful portion of revenues
from new gTLD applications to that end.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Summing up, we would have to oppose the URS regime that
the majority of the BC seems to favor as providing inadequate assurance of due
process to registrants, and we think the overall position on rights protection
is backwards looking given that the STI train has left the station. Again, this
does not mean we are unsympathetic to the concerns of rights holders.
Throughout the past 18 months we have advocated comprehensive UDRP reform that
would address the concerns of all parties across the entire gTLD space, and we
continue to believe that a good faith collaboration could produce positive
changes that could be put in place in tandem with the opening of new
gTLDs.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Regards to all,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Philip</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Philip S. Corwin </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Partner </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Butera & Andrews </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Suite 500 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Washington, DC 20004</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>202-347-6875 (office) </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>202-347-6876 (fax</span><span class=rvts7>)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>202-255-6172 (cell)</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts14>"Luck is the residue of design."</span><span
class=rvts13> -- Branch Rickey</span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts8>From:</span><span class=rvts9> </span><a class=rvts15
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts9> [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF
(ATTSI) [jb7454@xxxxxxx]</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent:</span><span class=rvts9> Friday, July 16, 2010
3:36 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To:</span><span class=rvts9> Ron Andruff; frederick
felman; </span><a class=rvts15
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject:</span><span class=rvts9> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT
BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>Thanks Ron and Sarah. AT&T supports filing
comments and I like how you’ve updated them. While I was not involved in
the original BC comments, I would note that you could add a reference to the
recommendation in the Economic Study that it may be wise for ICANC to continue
its practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited
rounds. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>Jeff Brueggeman</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>AT&T Public Policy</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>(202) 457-2064</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>From:</span><span class=rvts9> </span><a class=rvts15
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts9> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] </span><span
class=rvts8>On Behalf Of </span><span class=rvts9>Ron Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent:</span><span class=rvts9> Friday, July 16, 2010
12:34 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To:</span><span class=rvts9> 'frederick
felman'; </span><a class=rvts15
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject:</span><span class=rvts9> RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT
BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>Thanks to Mark Monitor and AIM for your notes of support
for the circulated draft.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>I encourage other members to give the doc a quick read.
While it is several pages long, please note that it is the same document
we submitted for DAGv3 so what we are asking is for you to review the redlines
and give your comments/amendments. To that end, Phil Corwin, can you
send your suggested URS text asap?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>Thanks again everyone for taking a moment to review the
DAGv4 draft comments.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>RA</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>Ronald N. Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>President</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>RNA Partners, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>220 Fifth Avenue</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>New York, New York 10001</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<hr noshade size=2>
<p><span class=rvts8>From:</span><span class=rvts9> frederick felman
[mailto:ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sent:</span><span class=rvts9> Friday, July 16, 2010
12:21 PM</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>To:</span><span class=rvts9> Ron
Andruff; </span><a class=rvts15
href="mailto:bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Subject:</span><span class=rvts9> Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT
BC Public Comments on DAGv4</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Importance:</span><span class=rvts9> High</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>MarkMonitor support the BC comments to DAGv4.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>On 7/15/10 7:20 AM, "Ron Andruff" <</span><a
class=rvts20
href="https://exchange.sierracorporation.com/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx";>randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts19>> wrote:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>Dear Members,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>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...</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>Thanks in advance for your soonest input.
</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>Kind regards,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts21>RA</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>Ronald N. Andruff</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>President</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>RNA Partners, Inc.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>220 Fifth Avenue</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>New York, New York 10001</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts22>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>- - - - - - - - -</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>phone 651-647-6109 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>fax 866-280-2356 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>web </span><a class=rvts24
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts23>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter,
Facebook, Google, etc.)</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>This e-mail message and any attachments may contain
confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In
the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do
not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be
assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action
taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail
in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail
address.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts25>Computer viruses can be transmitted by
e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for
viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any
damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other
forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception
by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification,
your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional
security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|