- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13oct11-en.htm Work Continues to Increase Developing Economies Participation in the New gTLD Program Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/jas-final-report-13oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 13 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:jas-final-report@icann.org> *Close Date:* 16 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/jas-final-report/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* A message from the JAS WG: Public comment is requested concerning theJoint Applicant Support*Final Report* <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf>[PDF, 503 KB] which deals with a very important issue:/How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?/Comments will be received until December 16 2011. The Final Report is the last step of the work done by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG). The group is represented by ICANN community members from around the world that have been working together on this initiative since April 2010. The Report offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries under the New gTLD Program. The Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by ALAC and the GNSO, the chartering organizations. Translations of theFinal Report <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf>[PDF, 503 KB]: * Español <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-es.pdf>[PDF, 513 KB] * Français <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-fr.pdf>[PDF, 570 KB] *Section II: Background* Below are some basic aspects of this work. /This proposal is currently under consideration by ICANN community, Board and Staff. A Program is under development and further details will be made available on ICANN's website to the general public./ The JAS WG was formed following aResolution <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm>from ICANN Board of Directors in Nairobi, on March 2010 that asked ICANN's stakeholder community/"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."/ 1. What is this all about? What is a Final Report? The Final Report is a document produced by the JAS WG that offers recommendations on how ICANN should develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants from developing economies requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs Registries. The Final Report proposes initial criteria for qualification as well as several other types of support for ICANN to consider. It has been approved by the GNSO and ALAC, the chartering organizations. This initiative is related to the New gTLD Program, which in the near future will allow entities from around the world to apply for a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD). The applicants passing the evaluation process will sign a contract with ICANN and run a Registry. 2. Who is being considered to receive support? Once the new gTLD applicant interested in receiving support has demonstrated "service to the public interest," "financial capabilities and need," one or more of the following characteristics apply: * Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities; * Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited; * Operation in a developing economy in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit; * Advocated by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s); and * Operation by a local entrepreneur(s), providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult. The Final Report also recommends that it instead use the internationally agreed-upon UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs list: * Least Developed Countries: category 199; * Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; * Small Island Developing States: category 722; * Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.All applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria. 3. Who does NOT qualify for support? According to the JAS WG, the application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: * An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand"); * A governmental or para-statal institution; * A gTLD string that is a geographic name or is based on one; * Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection; * Affiliated with sponsors or partners that are the subject of litigation or criminal investigation; * Incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures. 4. Who benefits from this? Why is it important? We all benefit from this initiative. The Internet belongs to all as well as the responsibility to look into effective ways to reduce the Digital Divide, in this particular case, by delivering a sustainable and critical support for applicants from developing economies and looking for a solution not only at the application phase but also through to the initial years of these new Registry operators. It is important because the Internet is a virtual real estate that belongs to everyone. Entities from around the world should be able to increase their participation in the top-level expansion. The Working Group also stresses it is important not only to increase participation from developing economies, but also to increase the likelihood of success by these new participants that will be delivering Domain Name Services (DNS). The current New gTLD Program, as designed, has an evaluation (and several other fees) that are considered high for a significant number of potential participants from around the world. Besides the issue of high fees, the program is in English only and has an evaluation process with criteria and requirements that are quite complex to navigate. 5. What kind of assistance in being considered? The Final Report proposes a full array of financial and non-financial support to be offered to applicants that meet the established criteria. The support should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. Currently ICANN has launched an online work space dedicated to connect potential applicants from developing regions who wish to apply for a New gTLD in their community with organizations who wish to offer either financial or non-financial assistance. See details on how this space works here:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidate-support 6. Who is part of this Working Group? The JAS WG is comprised of highly respected and experienced volunteers from the Supporting Organization and the Advisory Committee. This all-volunteer group teleconferences twice each week, and works through a Wiki and mailing lists. These active contributors are located in Australia, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, North America and the Caribbean. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* Relevant Resolutions and previous Public Comment Forum: * Information about the New gTLD Program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20 * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2 * http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm * http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201004 * First Milestone Report Public Forum <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#jas-mil…> * http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.h… Archive regarding the WG activities: * E-mail:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org <mailto:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org> * Wiki:https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Sup… *Section IV: Additional Information* The JAS WG will hold a session during the upcomingICANN Dakar Meeting <http://dakar42.icann.org/full-schedule>to both explain the Final Report and receive additional community feedback. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. The JAS WG recently held a webinar about the Final Report. The webinar has been recorded and is available in English, French and Spanish. See recordingshere <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep>. *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:* karla.valente(a)icann.org <mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Work%20Continues%20to%20Increase%20Developing%20Economies%20Participation%20in%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Program%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: ICANN FY11 Financials – Open, Transparent and CLEAN!
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-13oct11-en.htm ICANN FY11 Financials – Open, Transparent and CLEAN! 13 October 2011 For the 12^th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from the independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP. We have posted theresults <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf>[PDF, 821 KB] and invite you to take a transparent peek into our audited FY11 financials. "Unqualified" means that the auditors have not identified any matter that would require them to alter the extent of the "clean" opinion they are giving on ICANN's financial statements. ANNOUNCEMENT Title: Audited Financial Statements Posted ICANN's FY11 Audited Financials are nowposted <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun11-en.pdf>[PDF, 821 KB] and are available for review by the community. In accordance with Article XVI of ICANN's by-laws, the audited financial statements are to be posted by the end of October. For the 12^th straight year, ICANN has received an unqualified "clean" opinion from ICANN's independent auditors, Moss Adams LLP, the 11^th largest accounting firm in the United States. The Community is invited to review ICANN's audited financials and to provide commentaries and/or questions. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 18, 2011

Oct. 18, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17oct11-en.htm RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 17 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:rysg-proposal-cof@icann.org> *Close Date:* 2 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/rysg-proposal-cof/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* ICANN received from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) a proposal for Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund (COF). This proposal is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuing Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties. * The RySG proposal can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-21jul11-en.pdf[P…, 71 KB] * The Addendum can be found here:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-addendum-01…, 119 KB] The RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. The current model proposed by ICANN is outlined in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular see Question 50 of applicant questions evaluation criteria attachment and the spec 8 of the Registry Agreement. Respondents to the public comment that wish to learn more about this topic are also encouraged to read the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea…, 747 KB]) and the recently posted Emergency Back-End Registry Operator Request for Information (EBERO RFI):http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm Essentially, the existing Continuing Operations Instrument requires each new gTLD to obtain a letter of credit that will pay for the maintenance of five critical registry functions in the event of a registry failure. The proposed Continuing Operations Fund mechanism is essentially an insurance pool where each registry contributes to a fund -- the contribution to a pooled risk fund would be less than the letter of credit (perhaps significantly less). Here are some questions that public comment responders to be considered regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN. To be most effective, comments should identify the question addressed, or identify if a separate issue is addressed. 1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances? * Can the same end be accomplished through a third party? * Will an insurance company underwrite this? 2. The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook (see:http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb) is designed to provide some safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD registries that fail. For the existing COI model: * There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to protect registrants. How could this be addressed? For the COF model: * Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside? * What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to provide registrant protections? 3. In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the proposed fund? 4. How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF model ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes from small to large? 5. Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new registries enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this account for some level of predictability and fairness for all registries? 6. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund? 7. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various parties as required responding to emergency situations? *Section II: Background* This assurance of continuing operations through some mechanism -- whether it is the current continuity operations instrument or the newly proposed continuing operations fund -- is an important issue because it provides a mechanism to protect registrants in the event of a registry failure. ICANN's main goal is a registrant protection through the implementation of a transition process that occurs in a secure, stable and reliable manner, minimizing impact not only to gTLD registrants, but also to gTLD users. This process should provide transparency to all parties involved in the transition. The continuity operations instrument provides the one fully performed and in place registrant protection mechanism before the TLD is delegated. Additional important background information is furnished in the gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clea…, 747 KB]). Commenters should read that. A mechanism similar to the proposed continuing operations fund was considered at one time. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* * New gTLD Registry Agreement (see spec 8):http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-e…, 4.5 MB] * Module 2 of the Applicant Guidebook:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-cri…, 725 KB] andhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19s…, 919 KB] * gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-pro…, 747 KB] * New gTLD Program:http://newgtlds.icann.org/ *Section IV: Additional Information* There will be a session during the upcomingICANN Dakar Meeting <http://dakar42.icann.org/> to explain the proposal and receive additional community feedback. The session will be chaired by representatives from the RySG. This session will have remote participation for the people not able to attend in person. If you are interested in learning more and have questions, please seehere <http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27219>the details. *Staff Contact:* Karla Valente *Email:* karla.valente(a)icann.org <mailto:karla.valente@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20RySG%20Alternative%20Proposal%20for%20Continuity%20Operations%20Instrument%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Chair is George. Thanks, Bene. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:17 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names Dear BC Members, I am posting at the Chair's request the recently selected Board members for the CEO Search Process Management Work Committee. Please find the names below: Steve Crocker George Sadowsky Bertrand de La Chapelle Erika Mann Chris Disspain Cherine Chalaby Ray Plzak R. Ramaraj http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-11oct11-en.htm -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>

1 0

List of CEO Search Process Management Work Committee Names
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Dear BC Members, I am posting at the Chair's request the recently selected Board members for the CEO Search Process Management Work Committee. Please find the names below: Steve Crocker George Sadowsky Bertrand de La Chapelle Erika Mann Chris Disspain Cherine Chalaby Ray Plzak R. Ramaraj http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-11oct11-en.htm -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

list of BC Participants @ ICANN Dakar
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 17, 2011

Oct. 17, 2011

Dear BC Members, Following the BC call we just held regarding the logistics for the Dakar meeting, please find below the list of confirmed BC attendees, with name, company and arrival/departure dates. I have kept hotel names and contact details confidential as requested. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org DAKAR MEETINGATTENDEES Dates:October 21^st to October 28^th 2011 *N.* *Contact* *Company* *Dates* 1. Chris Chaplow Andalucia.com 21/10 -- 29/10 2. Martin Sutton HSBC 20/10 -- 27/10 3. Phil Corwin Virtualaw LLC 21/10 -- 29/10 4. Marilyn Cade Mcade LLC 21/10 -- 30/10 5. Sarah Deutsch Verizon 24/10 -- 30/10 6. Ayesha Hassan ICC 20/10 -- 29/10 7. Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc 22/10 -- 28/10 8. Philip Sheppard AIM 23/10 -- 27/10 9. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 21/10 -- 27/10 10. Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat 22/10 -- 26/10 11. Steve DelBianco Netchoice 22/10 -- 28/10 12. Jon Nevett Domain Dimensions LLC 22/10 -- 28/10 13. Jeff Brueggeman AT&T 24/10 28/10 14. Tero Mustala Nokia 21/10 -- 27/10 15. Alain Bidron ETNO 20/10 -- 28/10 16. Bill Smith PayPal 21/10 - 17. Susan Kawaguchi Facebook 22/10 -- 28/10 18. Dirk Krischenowski dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. ------------- 19. Jorge Aguila La Caixa ------------- 20. Waudo Siganga Computer Society of Kenya 27/10 -- 30/10 /21./// /John Berard/ /Credible Context/ /Participating Remotely/

1 0

CSG working Group on Budget and Operating Plan
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 16, 2011

Oct. 16, 2011

Dear Members of the BC, As you may remember at the last CSG meeting there was a motion to set up a CSG working Group on Budget and Operating Plan. I had an organization call with Steve Metalitz (IPC) and Tony Holmes (ISP) a few weeks ago as was elected Chair. We decided to seek between one and three additional volunteers from each constituency whose draft purpose is to analyze the implications of the Operating Plan and Budget on the CSG Constituencies, provide feedback to members, and provide professional comments within all the ICANN public comment process. Additionally the group will co-ordinate their SO/AC leadership constituency support requests. A couple of members expressed interest a while ago, but I would like to open a fresh call for volunteers now. We are intending to have a pre Dakar call on Tuesday 18th next at 17.00 UTC Looking forward to hearing from you. best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

2012-2015 Strategic Plan
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 16, 2011

Oct. 16, 2011

Dear Members Just a notify that draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan was published a few days ago both in clean and red-line versions. <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-03oct11-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-6-03oct11-en.htm Community input requested during Dakar. Closing date 17th November. It will be republished (without further comment period) for board approval in Dec. This is a earlier timetable than last year (publish 25 Nov 2010 and close extended to 25th Jan 2011) Last year comment can be found here <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#draft-s trat-2011> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#draft-st rat-2011 The metrics for achievement of Strategic objectives have been well modified and community feedback is specifically requested in this area. Chris Martin and Phil Corwin and others who as individuals, have spoken on the ethics and integrity challenges should consult Focus Area Four - A healthy internet governance eco-system and offer us an thoughts on this and any changes in the plans direction. Other members please offer insight into the other three focus areas or your interest, namely DNS Stability and Security Competition consumer trust and consumer choice Core operations including IANA best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

ICANN to manage Time Zone Database
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 15, 2011

Oct. 15, 2011

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today took over operation of an Internet Time Zone Database that is used by a number of major computer systems. ICANN agreed to manage the database after receiving a request from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The database contains time zone code and data that computer programs and operating systems such as Unix, Linux, Java, and Oracle rely on to determine the correct time for a given location. Modifications to the database occur frequently throughout the year. "The time zone database is used by a large number of commercial operating systems and the software applications," said Russ Housely, chairman of the IETF. "Incorrect time zone information will impact many everyday activities, including meeting and conference call coordination, airplane and train schedules, physical package delivery notices, and astronomical observatories." For nearly three decades, the TZ Database had been maintained by a group of dedicated volunteers, in particular, Arthur David Olson at the US National Institutes of Health. Olson coordinated the group, managed the data, and created a platform for their release. Olson's announced retirement prompted the IETF to turn to ICANN to ensure continued operation of the database. "The Time Zone Database provides an essential service on the Internet and keeping it operational falls within ICANN's mission of maintaining a stable and dependable Internet," said Akram Atallah, ICANN's Chief Operating Officer.

1 0

Announcement of Discussion topics in preparation for ICANN Dakar - Strat Plan and ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 14, 2011

Oct. 14, 2011

Dear BC MembersNormally, you will receive ALERTS from our Secretariat. I am writing as chair, about three topics, because the Officers need your input and guidance on these items. These comments are augmentative to the Secretariat's ALERTS, which presently call your attention to open public comments on ICANN's Policy Comments Page. Your input on any of the three items below would be appreciated. 1) Phase II of Public Comments Enhancements2) ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade3) Strategic Plan - possible on site consultation in Dakar 1) Phase II of Public Comment Enhancements: In Singapore, a group was launched to consider how to better organize participation in Public Comments. The Manager of Public Participation launched a Focus Group, with participation of one rep per SG. The IPC nominated Jonathan Zuck, who has held this role.. While I did not consider this ideal for the BC, the Focus Group's purpose was to present only prelminary input, with then a public Comment period, and the CSG accepted this appointment, as part of sharing the workload in the CSG. [Keep in mind that the BC holds two of the AoC Review Team appointments from the CSG]. The Public comment period is closing Oct. 15. There are not planned BC wide consensus comments, but BC members may want to provide their individual views on the Report, which can be found on the Public Comment page. This is an important topic, and already two BC members have posted in their personal capacity. My personal comments: I am concerned about the lack of public comments on so many of the topics that ICANN posts for public comment. Example: Originally, for instance, 60-90 minute discussions were held on the Budget/Operating Plan and Strat Plan, and these usually drew 20-25 attendees, as well as Board members, and a deep discussion could develop. ICANN's present approach of dividing into short interactions with the Constituencies has replaced this deeper cross community dialogue, and I personally am not sure that it is a useful approach. But to be fair, staff and Board are struggling to find a better vehicle, and I will note that I am not sure that the CSG has done a good job on these areas. In support of a cross CSG concern, the CSG leadership has created a Budget/Operating Plan working Group, chaired by Chris Chaplow, BC Vice Chair. However, more broadly, a quick visual analysis of the number of comments on key topics often shows that very often, very few comments are received. Exceptions are new gTLD issues. In my view, the Focus Group of five participants was probably too restrictive, but Staff had good intentions. Still, I would urge members to look at the report and try to provide comments. This is a genuine effort to try to be helpful in organizing how information is requested in public comments. There is a larger issue that was not addressed as far as I can tell and that is that calling for Public Comments may actually require more face to face sessions at ICANN meetings. For example, it may be that the Budget and Strat Plan require working sessions at an ICANN meeting, supplemented by remote and online consultation. BC Member To Do: Please post your individual views on this topic within the timeline. We will also add this topic to the BC agenda for the Dakar meeting, but since many of you will not be there in person, it would be helpful to hear from you via email or on our upcoming BC Members calls. 2) ICANN Meetings for the Next Decade The Chair of the Public Participation Committee (PPC ) has invited chairs of constituencies to join Council chairs/ AC chairs, to discuss ICANN meetings. This grew out of a PPC public session in Singapore my comments and that of the ALAC indicated that the PPC needs to undertake broader dialogue on these topics and not restrict interactions to policy chair/issues, since the meetings serve much broader roles. The PPC wants to explore ICANN meetings structure, content, frequency and cost. Four themes will be discussed:Current needs of the Community from the ICANN meetingsFuture ICANN meetings for the Future ICANN communityEfficiency, international [I think they mean global] participation; number and types of meetingsGeneral purpose of specifid IANN group specific [SO/AC/SG meetings] results and accomplishments I have confirmed that I will participate; I'll include Chris as well, but I have asked if additional observers are possible. However, at this point, my priority is that Chris and I work together to gather your input. I want to ask you to consider how meetings presently, or in the future could assist us in increasing meaningful business participation.Sometimes our comments are that we don't like the number of meetings, or that we don't like the selection of locations. Those are relevant points, but I think we need to go beyond that to try to improve the meaningful nature of the meetings. They are a key part of ICANN's legitimacy, and of bringing the full group of stakeholders together. They need to be as effective as possible. For instance, it could be that half a day would be better used to focus on a Budget/Operating Plan or Strat Plan working session on the preceeding week-end; compressing the GNSO Council's working sessions a bit. Recently, the week end sessions haven't actually been tightly packed with full time work, so it could be that some time could be repurposed for a broader, cross ICANN topic. Today, ICANN organizes and supports regional events for contracted parties. We have ocassionally invited ICANN as speakers to events that we have organized. Do we want more support, including possible financial assistance with venue for ocassional BC events, or are we satisfied with a commitment to providing speakers to events that we organize, and direct?Is this the place to promote our business outreach fellowship proposal so that we can build the participation of small business executives on a more consistent basis, and strengthen our global input?ICANN Board and financial staff seem to want to cut meetings out, while my view is that the face to face interactions are the only way that we bring forward the business views, and that for now, three meetings are essential. [an analysis of our attendance is that a higher number of members attend than other constituencies in the CSG and in the NCSG]. 3) Strategic PlanChris and I will be working on comments on the Strat Plan, but I urge you to read it. It incorporates some of the feedback that we provided in the CSG discussions with the Board in Singapore. Ironically, we are not acknowledged by staff as a contributor, but there is at least a sort of mild acknowledgement our comments on ecosystem interdependencies and some indication that ICANN may become open to working more openly with the business leadership on external threats. Overall, it is much improved from the initial 4-6 page version that we once saw, and it is worth our attention. Comments close in November, but I'd like to be able to address preliminary views during the DAKAR meeting. If you can volunteer to join Chris and myself on the discussions on the Strat Plan and development of BC comments, please email Bene and volunteer. We will also discuss this topic on the upcoming BC Members Calls, in preparation for Dakar. Please note that the purpose of this meeting is to exchange ideas and collect feedback, rather than to reach agreement or make decisions on the various issues that will be discussed. Discussion on all these topics is welcomed, and you can also notify Bene [and Chris and me] if you volunteer to work on the Strat Plan comments. But, please do post in your individual comments on Public Comment enhancements [item 1]. We need to all help to improve that process. Marilyn Cade, Chair

2 1