Steve,

These comments read well to me. I have but three suggestions, all of which are more nuance than substance.

First, in the WhoIs section, can we not give a nod to the view of the NCUC that for some people (e.g., dissidents in dangerous places), privacy is essential? I think the WhoIs database(s) ought to be accurate and secure. I am a big fan of tightly controlling access and the use of serious authentication protocols.

Second, I think we go too far in asking ICANN to spend money on itself. I realize compliance is an essential function, but less "pretty please" and more "ICANN's reputation requires."

Third, communications has many meanings. I would make sure we are clear in our meaning each time the word is used in the document.

That's is from (still rainy) San Francisco.

Cheers,

Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for
2012
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>
Date: Mon, March 21, 2011 7:16 pm
To: "bc-GNSO@icann.org" <bc-GNSO@icann.org>

ICANN is now gathering public comment on its proposed framework for FY 2012 operating plan and budget.

Attached is a discussion draft for BC comments prepared by Chris Chaplow, our Vice Chair for Finance & Administration.

(Those of you in San Francisco last week heard Chris summarize these comments in the Public Forum on Thursday. )

ICANN's Comment period closes 4-April, so today (21-March) begins our 14-day review period for this discussion draft.

Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 30-March, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 4-April.

For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2012

Thanks again to Chris for his leadership on all ICANN financial and administrative issues.

Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination