Philip,

Thank you for taking point on the EOI BC Position. 

While I support the EOI concept, there are far too many unresolved issues for this to be a fair and balanced method to advance gTLDs.  My primary concern with the proposed EOI is referenced in Reasons #4 & #5 of the BC position.  By forcing all potential applicants to blindly file EOI before all conditions and rules are finalized also unfairly prevents others from entering the application round.  The primary motivation for this EOI rule was to prevent speculative applications against similar strings.  I understand the reasoning, but more relaxed rules can accomplish the same goal without locking out other future applicants.

The other six reasons listed are equally valid points that the ICANN Board and broader community should consider.  Therefore, I support the proposed BC Position.  I look forward to reviewing the final version. 

For those in the BC that do not know me, I fully support the gTLD expansion.  But, I can only support it when most of the current state issues the community and market experience today are resolved.

Thank you.

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:56
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2

Thanks to BC members for their comments to date.

I attach a revised version 2.

Comments / expressions of support please now on this version referencing line tracking as appropriate.

Philip

---

From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:19 AM
To: 'bc-gnso@icann.org'
Subject: Draft BC position EOI

For 14 day comment

I have been asked by the new VP policy coordination Steve DelBianco to act as rapporteur for the issue of Expressions of Interest in the context of the new gTLDS process.

I attach a proposed draft for the Constituency. Its argumentation and consequent conclusion is based on the submissions of Bc members in their individual capacity to the public comments process. These comment were significant in their commonality. In short all commentators believed that:

- the EOI is a poor substitute for data gathering and an economic study

- the EOI is bad business practice as it requires investors to invest in ignorance of issues that ICANN is obliged to solve.

Comments, improvements are most welcome ideally by e-mail bullet points referencing the line numbers rather than Word tracked changes.

This makes the job of the poor rapporteur much easier !

Philip