I view the board resolution not as losing the debate, but more that we, the BC, supported an outdated legacy position that did not recognize the principles of an evolving marketplace. Having participated in the VI WG with 3000+ emails and circular debates across the spectrum of proposals, my initial position changed from that of the BC's to that of a Free Trade model similar to the Board's resolution. If there are any "harms" that result from the gTLD expansion, it will be tightly coupled to the quantity of gTLDs delegated and not that of which VI/CO model a Registry operates under. 21 to 500+ is exponential growth no matter how you look at it. Many in the VI group used the analogy of letting the Genie out of the bottle and that it will be impossible to capture the Genie back. In this case, the Genie is the quantity of TLDs delegated; all the while counter to recommendations of a controlled release by the GNSO and Economic experts. I will also say that the Board's resolution gives the BC a "BIG WIN" where by companies that many of us represent are now freely allowed to innovate within their own TLD and not take on the extra costs or burden of having to register their own domains. Behind to Community based gTLD, I think the most successful segment will be within the .BRAND gTLD arena or SRSU, SRMU models referenced in the VI WG. This is a grand opportunity for the BC to be a leader in showcasing and communicating these new ideas and innovation on this global stage. If the BC wishes to develop a position about the latest decision, I urge it to include proactive language of support and that we welcome the opportunities to contribute ideas to compliance, best practices, codes of conduct, etc.. 2011 will be exciting in deed! Enjoy Columbia for those that are going. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:05 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Vertical integration - Board says yes Re Board resolution http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm It seems we have lost the debate. Are the Board safeguards sufficient? Should we work on a paper to make them explicit? Philip

From a BC perspective, Philip is correct that we lost the debate. The concerns about registrars having access to registry data and the harms that can arise around such issues do need to be addressed, in my view. Therefore I support Philip's suggestion that the BC submit a recommendation to make the safeguards explicit. There is also work that still needs to be done on policy around SRSU/SRMU, if my understanding of the Board's VI resolution is correct.

Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:05 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Vertical integration - Board says yes Re Board resolution http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm It seems we have lost the debate. Are the Board safeguards sufficient? Should we work on a paper to make them explicit? Philip