Philip, thanks very much for your very prompt drafting and circulating the draft. The second version with new inputs from members have added in several important elements and clarifications. I have some further suggestions and comments, in, of course, my individual capacity as a member. One overarching comment: The BC has had a very measured approach to its statements about support for the new gTLD program, carefully balancing the measured, responsible acceptance of a new gTLD program that introduces names in a responsible, measured and accountable manner, without an outright endorsement of the new gTLD program. Thus, I was wondering if there was a need to just reference existing policy positions as a background? NOT to repeat, but perhaps just reference? General comment: I would prefer to see the document have full sentences for the headings. That isn't a change in the document, but would strengthen it as a document to be used in interactions with Board and community and GAC during Nairobi. Some examples of full sentence headings are shown below for consideration: 1. The EOI as presently crafted has an unclear objective 2. The EOO, as presently crafted is diverting ICANN and the broader community from addressing Critical unresolved Issues: 3. The EIO is not a substitute for an economic study 4. The present EOI approach requires applicants to make a significant payment of one third of the full registration fee, but without a complete DAG, creating liability for ICANN and unclear risks for registry applicants 5. The EOI as crafted pressures potential applicants, including Brand Holders to enter into the EOI process for defensive reasons 6. The present EOI may encourage secondary market speculation at the top level, introducing risks and uncertainty that can add risks to the stability of the global Internet and DNS 7. this item needs a clearer title.Comment: I am not sure I fully understand this point. Is it that by publishing the list of strings, different applicants may then begin to take legal or other action to oppose others applying for a particular string? 8. I don't agree with this suggestion that the EOI in and of itself violates the AoC. The definition of what the 'public interst' means in the AoC is still unclear. I played a very strong role in getting that language included in the PSC documents, and many PSC elements were later incorporated then by ICANN and the NTIA into the AoC, and in the longer term, this area may be a useful area to explore further. Many individual BC members provided comments into the PSC process that supported the recognition of ICANN's need to act in the public interest in many of its decisions. However, this element is still very much a matter of exploration and discussion. However, for this particular discussion, I do not believe that the Board or staff or others in the stakeholder community will find it persuasive. Perhaps the real point for a new/revised 8. is: new text: Consistency with previous ICANN practice on new gTLD applicationsIn earlier processes to introduce new gTLDs, ICANN did undertake assessing a 'sense' of the interest, undertaken without a binding fee, and respecting anoniminity. If the purpose is merely to help staff to assess volumes, two thresholds should be met before undertaking an 'assessment of interest from potential applicants: 1) Completion of the overarching issues and 2) A fully completed DAG. ICANN should not be pursuing an EOI that creates possible liability to the organization for implied or other forms of commitment to potential registry applicants, and should address all of the overarching issues including completing a full economic analysis and completing the DAG. Any surveys about 'interests' should be non binding and avoid creating expectations that ICANN will move forward with a particular list of strings in any application cycle. From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:55:47 +0100 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

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