<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>POSTED: Business Constituency comments on process for Amending TLD Agreements</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>BC comments on TLD agreements are now posted to ICANN website.<BR>
<BR>
See <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-amend-15feb10/msg00003.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-amend-15feb10/msg00003.html</a> and also shown below.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks again to Jon Nevett and Ron Andruff for leading on this.<BR>
<BR>
-------------<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Lucida Grande"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Attached are consensus comments of the Commercial & Business Users<BR>
Constituency (BC), regarding the Process for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment.<BR>
<BR>
The BC believes that neither the ICANN staff nor the Board should be able to amend registry agreements without community involvement and input from registry operators. All changes –- regardless of the issue -- must be transparent and exhibit the appropriate level of accountability to the community. <BR>
<BR>
For issues within the picket fence, there is an existing Policy Development Process that carries the power to change all registry and registrar agreements. As described in current and proposed registry contracts, the picket fence includes most conceivable ways that community and BC members would need to control registry practices.<BR>
<BR>
ICANN needs to strike a balance in the manner in which registry agreements are amended. In the BC’s view, neither the current ICANN proposal nor the RySG proposal succeeds in doing so yet. <BR>
<BR>
Our rapporteurs for these comments were Ron Andruff and Jon Nevett.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>