This is a follow-up regarding BC suggestions for implementation improvements to the new gTLD program.

In late December, Marilyn and I circulated a draft improvements letter from the BC drawing on prior BC positions.  My records show that we received email objections to that letter from 4 BC members:

Mikey O'Connor     29-Dec
Bill Smith (Paypal)   29-Dec
Mike Rodenbaugh  29-Dec
Mike Palage     30-Dec

I concluded that this showed "initial significant disagreement" per our charter: 
7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement.     Members who seek changes to a draft should submit proposed language in writing. If there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or discussion at a physical meeting. 

So we opened a formal review & comment period from Feb 3 thru Feb 17 on the two detailed tables of improvements and prior positions. (attached)    My records show we received written comments from 9 members (listed at bottom).  To summarize:
Mike Rodenbaugh registered his objection, as he did in December.
Phil Corwin disagreed with some of the improvements.
We also recorded written Support from 7 members, many with additional comments.

Sec 7.4 of our Charter guides us on "Approval where there is continued disagreement":
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. 

During the formal comment period, we recorded 2 objections.  Combined with the December comments, we had 5 members objecting (Mike Rodenbaugh was in both counts).

5 member objections do not meet the 15% threshold that would trigger a formal ballot. ( 46 x .15 = 6.9 )

We therefore do not need to conduct formal voting, and the list of implementation improvements are now considered an official BC position.

The attached letter to the ICANN Board was created by extracting the first column of the two tables, plus some additional context.  It will be sent to Crocker and Beckstrom, with cc to GAC Chair.  

It will also be posted today to the ICANN Public Comment on defensive applications at the top level, citing our first recommendation on TLD applications and attaching the full list. 

Just let me know if members have questions about process or substance on this.

--Steve


-----

Mike Rodenbaugh: 
No comments on section 1.  
Mike objects to Section 2, saying recommendations are not clearly described and are missing essential details and justifications (e.g. "Do Not Register")

Yvette Miller (CADNA): 
no comments on section 1.  
No objections in section 2, but offered comments:  
Supports suggestion that Non-profit applicants should not be sent to auction.  Also says non-profits should get Applicant Support.
Strongly supports "Do Not Register" and endorsed the ICM method of permanent blocking.
Strongly supports date-certain for next round.

Ron Andruff supported CADNA comments.

Phil Corwin (ICA): 
Section 1, comment on URS: concerned that Transfer option makes URS a substitute for UDRP.  Okay with TM Claims notice for any name previously suspended in URS.  
Section 2, regarding CADNA's point (5): ICA disagrees with special treatment of all non-profits.  Phil disagrees with JAS, on principle that subsidies are resource transfers that go beyond ICANN's mandate. 
Phil is checking with ICA members on "Do Not Register"
Unrealistic to expect Board to set a date-certain for next round.

Marilyn Cade:
Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 
Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

Sarah Deutsch (Verizon):
Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 
Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

Martin Sutton (HSBC):
Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

Jeff Brueggeman (ATT):
Yes on all Section 2 improvements

Lane Mortenson (Wells Fargo)
Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 
Yes on all Section 2 improvements