RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] DAG Comment for review

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Everyone:

To date, the only response thus far has been from Mikey O'Connor.  It
seemed there was broader support for this idea on the last call, but
it's possible that not everyone hasn't had a chance to respond yet.

So, let's keep this open until the end of the day (18:00 Pacific
Daylight) on Wednesday.  If it's still just the two of us signing on,
then perhaps it would be more appropriate just to raise the subject in
our individual / organization's comments on the DAG.

Thanks--

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] DAG Comment for review
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 03, 2009 12:02 pm
To: "IRTP-A " <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello Everyone:

As we discussed earlier, the WG determined that it was not in scope to
include any comment on the New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) in
our IRTP-A Final Report. As a result, I have put together the attached
draft statement for your review. 

This statement recommends that ICANN (Board & Staff) consider modifying
the DAG to ensure that all new gTLD registries adopt the "Thick" model. 
It clearly indicates in several places that this is not the position of
the WG, the GNSO, or any particular constituency or organization. 
Rather, its supporters are speaking entirely in an individual capacity
based upon their experience on the IRTP-A Working Group.

If you agree with this recommendation, feel free to indicate your
support. We could also entertain changes to the language, but I am of
the opinion that the simplest approach is best. No one should feel
obligated to sign on, support is welcome but optional.

The intention is that this statement will be posted as part of the DAG
Public Comment Period (ending Apr 13 2009). Ideally, we will have the
language and list of signatories finalized by early next week for
posting.

Thank you,

J.


________________________
James M. Bladel
GoDaddy.com