As discussed on our last BC members call, we requested a 2 week extension on this public comment period. The IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOR) working group granted us 1 week, since they have their own deadlines to analyze comments and prepare their final recommendations to the CCWG. This comment is now due by 1-Feb-2017. From: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry@icann.org<mailto:karen.mulberry@icann.org>> Date: Monday, January 23, 2017 at 5:01 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures Steve, I wanted to confirm that the Co-Chair’s have approved a deadline extension for the IRP Public Comment period for one additional week. I hope that this will provide sufficient time for your submission. Thank you, Karen Mulberry Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) ICANN From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 7:15 PM To: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry@icann.org<mailto:karen.mulberry@icann.org>> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures Hi, Karen. As the staff contact for Updated Supplementary Procedures for the IRP[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_irp-2Dsupp-2Dprocedures-2D2016-2D11-2D28-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=Q_fMdPzWh_dPIFRoT0_RCyUZ-mS0xeE4EeQTxa_ckQI&m=WCws5VokF-q1trXfNjFDT4Bd1j1VoFNdzrbyH2mc7G0&s=ytvyKVEZ_Bqi2Qmydd-mrhrGmFwdVIYIN8R6fPb125k&e=>, we are contacting you to formally request a 2-week extension to the public comment period. The period is scheduled to end 25-Jan, and we are requesting an extension to 8-Feb, at the earliest. The justification to grant this extension is that we only just received a legal analysis and recommendations for the proposed procedures. Sidley Austin, attorneys to the CCWG, prepared a legal memo (attached) that was shared with the BC membership only last week (12-Jan). We’d like to incorporate some of Sidley’s analysis, and need additional time to have BC members review the changes. I do not see any great urgency to the adoption of IRP procedures, so I hope this request can be granted. Glad to field questions you may have about this request. Regards, Steve Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency