- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Results of BC poll on DAGv4 comments
by Steve DelBianco July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010

From: Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination To: BC Members ( Background on this policy poll appears at the end of this email ) On 26-July, GNSO Secretariat (Glen de Saint Géry) downloaded and counted ballots for the two BC position statements on DAGv4. Glen reported there were 24 (twenty four) votes (incl 1 abstention) in the bcvote(a)bizconst.org mailbox. Glen opened, logged, and counted each vote. The results: a) With respect to the "Points 1-3" there were 18 votes of "Support" and 4 votes of "Do not Support". (One person did not vote in this category) b) With respect to the "Rights Protection Mechanism" there were 18 votes of "Support" and 5 votes of "Do not Support". ***end of Glen’s report*** 24 ballots represents 47% of 51 eligible members. While the BC poll shows significant majority support (82% on points 1-3 and 78% on RPMs), we did not reach the quorum required by our Charter, Section 7.4: A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm Before the results were in, the Executive Committee approved a process in the event quorum was not achieved: Since quorum was not achieved, the Executive Committee will submit the 2 position statements to ICANN as minority positions, per Section 7.4 of the BC Charter. That is, these positions were approved by a clear majority of those voting, but the number of voters was 2 short of the required quorum of 26 (50% of 51eligible voters). On the attached position for "Points 1-3", 18 BC members voted to support, 4 members voted "Do not Support,” and there was 1 abstention. [attach position] On the attached position for "Rights Protection Mechanisms", 18 BC members voted to support, while 5 members voted "Do not Support.” [attach position] Using the description above, we will post these 2 position documents to ICANN’s public comment forum today. Each comment includes a note explaining the voting and failure to reach quorum. Last week, we alerted staff that the BC would be a few days late with our comments. *** background emails below *** From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:38:24 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Documents and ballot for BC Comments on DAGv4 (poll closes noon EDT Friday 23-Jul-2010) As described in our previous note (repeated below), the BC is now polling members to determine support for proposed comments on Draft Applicant Guidebook version 4 (DAGv4). Attached are three documents: *** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf Points 1thru 3: This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments regarding: market differentiation; translations and IDN versions of gTLDs; and community-based evaluation scoring. Our Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis provided to ICANN. *** Comment part 2: DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf Rights Protection Mechanisms. Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC “minority statement” we approved and submitted on a previous draft of the DAG. *** A blank ballot form: BC Polling Form 20-Jul-2010.doc, where you can indicate support or non-support for each of these 2 proposed comments. Voting instructions for BC members: Attached is your ballot form. Please complete your ballot and save the document to your local computer. Then attach your saved ballot to an email and send to bcvote(a)bizconst.org Please use the subject line "DAG4 Comments Vote". You will receive an auto confirmation of your email. This mailbox will retain all the ballot emails. Nobody on the Executive Committee has access to this mailbox at this time. When the voting closes at 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010, we will arrange for our Secretariat (or another neutral party) to access and tally the ballots. Reminder: please submit your ballot by 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010. Thanks to all who contributed to these draft comments. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:14:38 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: "excomm(a)bizconst.org" <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Subject: Process and polling for BC Comments on DAGv4 From: Marilyn Cade (BC Chair) and Steve DelBianco (vice chair for policy coordination) to: BC members Comments on DAGv4 are due to ICANN on 21-July. Ron Andruff volunteered to be BC Rapporteur and worked with Sarah Deutsch to circulate a draft on 14-July. For the last week, about a dozen BC members debated and exchanged alternate drafts via email. During that discussion, at least 5 BC members expressed opposition to the comment draft. If opposition reaches 15% of paid membership, section 7.4 in our Charter is triggered: 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of members will be eligible to vote. A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm The ability of the BC to comment on DAG 4 is important to many of the members. The time line has to be modified to do follow the polling process in our charter. The majority of your executive committee supports giving a clean document to members to vote/poll in a shortened time frame. We respect that some of you may not be in agreement with the decision. However, we see no other way to achieve a submission within a reasonable time frame. Although it will be 2 days late, it will be within a reasonable time frame to be considered by ICANN. Ron Andruff is working with a few others on a clean document that he will distribute by 4pm EDT today. The goal is to for this document to get as close as we can to a consensus that all BC members can vote on. Ron may also distribute additional section(s) that would be subject to a separate vote. We will then conduct a formal members poll to close by noon EDT, Friday 23-July. We understand that this is not the best option. But given time pressures, and the work that has gone into this from all members, we want to ensure that we do all we can to have as much agreement on a core submission as we can, and that we find ways to hear the voices and concerns of all members. ------ End of Forwarded Message

4 5

Counting of the BC Comment on the Dag4 Vote
by Chris Chaplow July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010

Dear Glen, On behalf of our all the members the BC, thank you very much for stepping in to count the vote for our Dag4 Comment. We do appreciate it, especially knowing that you had a lot of other tasks to attend this Monday morning. Thanks for the diligence. With best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

FW: Comments of Business Constituency, reflecting majority support but lacking required quorum
by Steve DelBianco July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010

Below is a copy of the cover email to ICANN, explaining the BC minority positions. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:33:33 -0400 To: <4gtld-guide(a)icann.org> Subject: Comments of Business Constituency, reflecting majority support but lacking required quorum In accordance with our Charter, the Business Constituency (BC) conducted a poll of its members on 2 position statements addressing separate aspects of the Applicant Guidebook, version 4. Both position statements were approved by a clear majority of those voting, but the number of voters was 2 short of the required quorum of 26. Because this BC poll did not reach the required quorum, the BC Executive Committee followed its Charter in determining to submit these position statements as minority positions. *** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf Points 1thru 3: This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments regarding: 1) market differentiation; 2) translations and IDN versions of gTLDs; and 3) community-based evaluation scoring. Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis provided to ICANN. 18 BC members voted to support this comment, 4 members voted "Do not Support,² and there was 1 abstention. *** Comment part 2: DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf (RPM) Rights Protection Mechanisms. Rapporterus Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC ³minority statement² approved and submitted for a previous draft of the DAG. 18 BC members voted to support this comment, while 5 members voted "Do not Support.² -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

1 0

PUBLIC COMMENT ANNOUNCEMENT RE: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries/BC process TBD
by Marilyn Cade July 24, 2010

July 24, 2010

NOTICE to BC Members: I AM ASKED AS CHAIR, TO DISTRIBUTE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. Please note your opportunity to submit your individual comments. Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair, Policy Coordination, will advise the BC of his proposal on how, and whether to submit BC comments. This announcement is an alert, since many BC members may wish to submit individual comments. Some BC members have been on this working group, in their INDIVIDUAL capacity. They are subject matter experts that can inform the rest of us. They were not acting on behalf of the BC, and I applaud each of them, especially Mikey O'Connor, for undertaking the work, and understanding and 'living' the unique separation of WG from 'REST of WORK' for a Constituency that one belongs to. All of you who worked on this WG are invited to help to inform the RoU [rest of us], but we respect that you will now act as a BC member, or abstain, if you so determine. I wanted to recognize your work on this WG. It has been 'heavy lifting' and is much appreciated. We will have an aggressive schedule of ICANN public comments ahead, and we will try our best to be clear, in the subject line, of the purpose of an announcement. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23jul10-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries 23 July 2010 The GNSO Vertical Integration Working Group is seeking comments on its Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries. This Initial Report [PDF, 731 KB] is posted for public comment as a required step in the GNSO’s Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. The Initial Report describes various proposed solutions for restrictions on vertical integration between registrars and registries for adoption in the New gTLD Program. Please note: The Working Group is working under an extremely aggressive schedule in order to meet the requirements that have been placed on it by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. The Working Group is planning to continue its analysis throughout the public comment period. Reviewers are encouraged to submit comments early to provide the group as much time as possible to consider them. The public comment period ends on 12 August 2010. Background: The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO Council formed a working group to evaluate whether any policy recommendations should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs. ICANN is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation details for the launch of new gTLDs. ICANN has posted four draft applicant guidebooks and a series of topic papers for public comment describing the manner in which ICANN proposes to implement this program. These documents include proposals on the topic of vertical integration and whether cross-ownership restrictions or other rules related to vertical integration should be adopted to apply to the New gTLD Program. The Initial Report describes several proposals regarding vertical integration that have been developed and analyzed by the VI Working Group. No proposal has achieved consensus support within the VI Working Group. These proposals are included for the purpose of seeking public comment and will be subject to further analysis and debate as the VI Working Group continues to strive to develop a consensus position to recommend to the GNSO Council on an expedited basis. The Initial Report published for public comment is a “snapshot” of a living document that will be revised several times during the public comment period. Reviewers are encouraged to check on the working-group wiki for the latest version of this Initial Report. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposed vertical integration models that are described the Initial Report. The Initial Report will be posted for a public comment period that closes on 12 August 2010. Comments can be sent to vi-pdp-initial-report(a)icann.org and reviewed athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/. Additional Information: To review the Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars, please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 254 KB]. The ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5. To review the charter describing the policy work undertaken by the Vertical Integration Working Group, please refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… [PDF, 41 KB]. For information on the details of the implementation planning activities for new gTLDs, please refer to the documents posted athttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm To review updates to the Initial Report that may be developed by the VI Working Group during the public comment period, please refer to the archive of Initial Report snapshots posted at https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots. Staff responsible: Margie Milam Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Notification of Receipt of Proposal for Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers
by Marilyn Cade July 24, 2010

July 24, 2010

AUTONOMOUS NUMBERS POLICY: Dear BC colleagues While perhaps not on your radar screen, AS's matter. These numbers are as critical [or more so] than IP addresses. Your technical guys who support your networks worry about your AS, since that is how your network is 'found' by other networks. I will invite technical contacts from BC members to work together to discuss this topic. It is not a 'general' gTLD policy issue but a broader governance issue. We could schedule a specific call to discuss. Countries can, through their practices, limit the ability of ISPs to obtain AS #s; that makes a country look like they have limited connectivity to the Internet. The US, most of Europe, and most of Latin America, assume that any network can obtain an AS number via the RIR, and be 'identified' as a separate network in the global Internet. Some countries want to limit the access to AS #s to the incumbent telecom in their country and have all ISPs 'behind' the single AS #. This creates much confusion in both being able to measure Internet growth, and some other challenges. If you want to join a discussion on this topic, please let me know. I believe that comments, for the most part, should come from individual companies with experts, but we may want to submit a high level statement. This is not a gTLD policy, but an ICANN goverance policy which has significant implications for the BC's members, especially those that operate networks. Marilyn CadeBC Chair > > > Forwarded From: John Jeffrey > To all ICANN Advisory Committee and Supporting Organization Chairs (with copy to SO Secretariats), > > Pursuant to ICANN's MOU with the NRO, yesterday ICANN received a proposal for a Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers. Under the MOU, ICANN is required to issue a 21-day final call for comments on that proposed policy and to issue notices to ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the final call. > > This is to inform you that today, ICANN opened a 21-day final call for public comment on the proposed policy, and encourages your membership to participate. The announcement of the public comment period, including a link to the proposed policy, is available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jul10-en.htm, and the public comment forum can be accessed at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#asn-2010. The public comment forum will be open until 13 August 2010. > > Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and circulating this information to your supporting organization or advisory committee membership. > > John Jeffrey > General Counsel & Secretary > ICANN > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > Marina del Rey, CA USA 90292 > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org >

1 0

FW: [gnso-rap-dt] Call for volunteers proposing a way forward on the RAP Final Report recommendations
by Berry Cobb July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

BC, Below you will find a notice wrt to the Registration Abuse Policies prep-PDP recommendations passed to the GNSO council. The council is looking to build a team that will draft a proposal plan for executing the recommendations contained in the report. According the last GNSO call, the council seems interested in executing recommendations where unanimous consensus was achieved first and then work down the recommendation list. For example, UDRP reform is at the top of that list. I myself have signed on to the team, but I am sure the group could use additional help. Please review the thread below if you are interested. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:17 AM To: gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] Call for volunteers proposing a way forward on the RAP Final Report recommendations Dear All, Following on from the GNSO Council discussion on Thursday 15 July, regarding the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Final Report Conclusions, Recommendations, & Next Steps http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendations -13jul10-en.pdf This is a call for volunteers who would be willing to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the report, which could include the timing of forming groups to consider some of the recommendations in the final report as well as how to deal with those recommendations that did not achieve unanimous consensus. For those recommendations that do not concern the Initiation of a Policy Development Process, proposed next steps / actions by the GNSO Council might be considered too. Please consult with your stakeholder groups and anyone willing to work on this task please contact the gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Volunteers are not restricted to Council members and may come from the RAP Working Group itself. While he does not have the time to take the lead on this, Chuck volunteered to assist in this effort if needed. Please submit names to be added to the mailing list for this purpose by 23 July 2010. A progress report on where the group is will be submitted to the Council at its next meeting on 5 August 2010. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [liaison6c] Fellowship Programme: Application Round Opens for Cartagena Meeting Fellowships
by Marilyn Cade July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

Dear BC members: I would like to see a strong effort to encourage self nominations for small businesses or small associations from developing countries to attend Cartagena. Ayesha, Waudo, Anders, and I will be discussing how to advance awareness of the fellowships announcement, IF you want to participate in this off list discussion, send me a private email at marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; and join this discussion. Chris Chaplow will also be participating, as our V.Chair, operations and finance. I'd like to prioritize participation from African region and Latin America, so if you have relevant contacts, please forward this announcement to those contacts. Marilyn CadeBC Chair From: Glen(a)icann.org To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:47:45 -0700 Subject: [liaison6c] Fellowship Programme: Application Round Opens for Cartagena Meeting Fellowships Application Round Opens for Cartagena Meeting Fellowships Program ensures global representation at ICANN’s International Public Meetings 22 July 2010 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has launched the 11th round of the Fellowship program applications for its 39th International Public Meeting to be held Cartagena, Columbia on 5-10 December 2010. Over the last 10 meetings, the Fellowship program has proven to be a successful method of capacity building for the ICANN community, making sure global voices are heard in the wide variety of public forums that it holds. As CEO Rod Beckstrom said when addressing the Russian Internet Governance Forum in Moscow last May, “The Internet is a work in progress. It feeds and grows off ideas, and new ideas greatly affect its direction. Its most influential contributors are those who can see the possibilities that others don’t. And the most powerful are those whose ideas trigger the imagination of others.” We see the Fellowship program playing a major role in bringing those great ideas and idea makers into the Internet community. Priority in selection is given to applicants who are current residents of developing and least developed nations and interested in participating in ICANN and its supporting organizations, such as the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, the At-Large and the Generic Names Supporting Organization. The Fellowship program will assist in covering airfare, hotel and a stipend. Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes. As always, registration for ICANN’s meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. Applications for the meeting in Cartagena will be accepted from now until 1200 PDT (UTC -7) on 1 September 2010. More information, as well as a link to the application for a fellowship, is available online at: https://forms.icann.org/fellowship/applications/icann39/ or email at fellowships(a)icann.org What Is ICANN? To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers. ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn’t deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet’s naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Documents and ballot for BC Comments on DAGv4 (poll closes noon EDT Friday 23-Jul-2010)
by Steve DelBianco July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Just a reminder for the BC poll on DAGv4 comments. (see original email below) Voting closes at 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010. If you’ve already voted, thank-you! ------- Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:38:24 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Documents and ballot for BC Comments on DAGv4 (poll closes noon EDT Friday 23-Jul-2010) As described in our previous note (repeated below), the BC is now polling members to determine support for proposed comments on Draft Applicant Guidebook version 4 (DAGv4). Attached are three documents: *** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf Points 1thru 3: This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments regarding: market differentiation; translations and IDN versions of gTLDs; and community-based evaluation scoring. Our Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis provided to ICANN. *** Comment part 2: DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf Rights Protection Mechanisms. Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC “minority statement” we approved and submitted on a previous draft of the DAG. *** A blank ballot form: BC Polling Form 20-Jul-2010.doc, where you can indicate support or non-support for each of these 2 proposed comments. Voting instructions for BC members: Attached is your ballot form. Please complete your ballot and save the document to your local computer. Then attach your saved ballot to an email and send to bcvote(a)bizconst.org Please use the subject line "DAG4 Comments Vote". You will receive an auto confirmation of your email. This mailbox will retain all the ballot emails. Nobody on the Executive Committee has access to this mailbox at this time. When the voting closes at 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010, we will arrange for our Secretariat (or another neutral party) to access and tally the ballots. Reminder: please submit your ballot by 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010. Thanks to all who contributed to these draft comments. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:14:38 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: "excomm(a)bizconst.org" <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Subject: Process and polling for BC Comments on DAGv4 From: Marilyn Cade (BC Chair) and Steve DelBianco (vice chair for policy coordination) to: BC members Comments on DAGv4 are due to ICANN on 21-July. Ron Andruff volunteered to be BC Rapporteur and worked with Sarah Deutsch to circulate a draft on 14-July. For the last week, about a dozen BC members debated and exchanged alternate drafts via email. During that discussion, at least 5 BC members expressed opposition to the comment draft. If opposition reaches 15% of paid membership, section 7.4 in our Charter is triggered: 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of members will be eligible to vote. A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm The ability of the BC to comment on DAG 4 is important to many of the members. The time line has to be modified to do follow the polling process in our charter. The majority of your executive committee supports giving a clean document to members to vote/poll in a shortened time frame. We respect that some of you may not be in agreement with the decision. However, we see no other way to achieve a submission within a reasonable time frame. Although it will be 2 days late, it will be within a reasonable time frame to be considered by ICANN. Ron Andruff is working with a few others on a clean document that he will distribute by 4pm EDT today. The goal is to for this document to get as close as we can to a consensus that all BC members can vote on. Ron may also distribute additional section(s) that would be subject to a separate vote. We will then conduct a formal members poll to close by noon EDT, Friday 23-July. We understand that this is not the best option. But given time pressures, and the work that has gone into this from all members, we want to ensure that we do all we can to have as much agreement on a core submission as we can, and that we find ways to hear the voices and concerns of all members. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Process and polling for BC Comments on DAGv4
by Steve DelBianco July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

From: Marilyn Cade (BC Chair) and Steve DelBianco (vice chair for policy coordination) to: BC members Comments on DAGv4 are due to ICANN on 21-July. Ron Andruff volunteered to be BC Rapporteur and worked with Sarah Deutsch to circulate a draft on 14-July. For the last week, about a dozen BC members debated and exchanged alternate drafts via email. During that discussion, at least 5 BC members expressed opposition to the comment draft. If opposition reaches 15% of paid membership, section 7.4 in our Charter is triggered: 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of members will be eligible to vote. A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm The ability of the BC to comment on DAG 4 is important to many of the members. The time line has to be modified to do follow the polling process in our charter. The majority of your executive committee supports giving a clean document to members to vote/poll in a shortened time frame. We respect that some of you may not be in agreement with the decision. However, we see no other way to achieve a submission within a reasonable time frame. Although it will be 2 days late, it will be within a reasonable time frame to be considered by ICANN. Ron Andruff is working with a few others on a clean document that he will distribute by 4pm EDT today. The goal is to for this document to get as close as we can to a consensus that all BC members can vote on. Ron may also distribute additional section(s) that would be subject to a separate vote. We will then conduct a formal members poll to close by noon EDT, Friday 23-July. We understand that this is not the best option. But given time pressures, and the work that has gone into this from all members, we want to ensure that we do all we can to have as much agreement on a core submission as we can, and that we find ways to hear the voices and concerns of all members.

2 2

IRTP-B initial Report
by Chris Chaplow July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Hi, The WG today agreed to extend the public comment period to 8th August for the IRTP-B initial report. This give the BC opportunity to comment. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

2 1