Below is a copy of the cover email to ICANN, explaining the BC minority positions. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:33:33 -0400 To: <4gtld-guide@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