May 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fw: Interesting article about parked domains
by Kan Kaili June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Hi, Thanks a lot for sharing. Just read the article titled "Make Easy Money from Your Parked Domains with Google AdSense for Domains". https://www.groovypost.com/howto/google/google-adsense-for-domains-review-m… This article by Google itself teaches you how to make money from parked domains, although at the expense of consumers and end-users. I am used to think of Google as "DO NO EVIL". Well, maybe not always ... :( Kaili

7 9

SAC096 SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Draft Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights
by Julie Hammer May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Hi Everyone, Please note that the following SSAC Report has been published: SAC096: SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Draft Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights In summary, since there are no associated security and stability aspects, the SSAC is pleased to offer its support for the draft Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights. This Reports is attached and can also be found on the SSAC Reports <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> webpage. Cheers, Julie

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by Maureen Hilyard May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Happy to have the sentence deleted and the statement tidied up. Glad to eventualy get some input. Its been there for a while. Maureen On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > Sorry, I should have checked by this got by me. > > I presume the $10 in the statement should have been 10% and I really > don't understand what is meant by "is also out of scope for an ICANN > Registry Agreement", since it is clearly not out of scope. It is not the > norm, and is out of scope for a NORMAL registry agreement, but certainly is > in scope for this very unusual agreement. > > I suggest the this sentence be dropped and the statement re-issued. > > Alan > > At 30/05/2017 07:04 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please be so kind to find attached the ALAC Statement on the Proposed > Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement. > > In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be > transmitted to the ICANN public comment process, copying the ICANN Staff > member responsible for this topic, with a note that the Statement is > pending ALAC ratification. Once ratified, this Statement will be > resubmitted incorporating updated ratification information in the > introduction section. > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > Website: atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ICANNAtLarge > <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > > > Content-Type: application/pdf; name="AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf" > Content-Description: AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf"; > size=241838; creation-date="Tue, 30 May 2017 23:04:44 GMT"; > modification-date="Tue, 30 May 2017 23:04:44 GMT" > Content-ID: <944AB3A64D187B4E9FF9870710BA62A2(a)pexch112.icann.org> > X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:BUowScGu0hA4GBTcD/ > FJ69QsbdHvvSOlLQrtTS2lb4fL6BFuFe5vGCTFzjx46jlFiJotAUKXPaJMd2YqQ+ > o7zna9yqtpeOTHDTw0pGRGA33OcCMeKkjtECf7zmZe7xgMo8faEMUrWb9wD34FaKxxKw== > X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000100)(400125000095)( > 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001128)(400125100095)( > 400001002128)(400125200095); > >

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by Alan Greenberg May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. At 30/05/2017 10:15 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >Happy to have the sentence deleted and the >statement tidied up. Glad to eventualy get some >input. Its been there for a while. > >Maureen > >On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Sorry, I should have checked by this got by me. > >I presume the $10 in the statement should have >been 10% and I really don't understand what is >meant by "is also out of scope for an ICANN >Registry Agreement", since it is clearly not out >of scope. It is not the norm, and is out of >scope for a NORMAL registry agreement, but >certainly is in scope for this very unusual agreement. > >I suggest the this sentence be dropped and the statement re-issued. > >Alan > >At 30/05/2017 07:04 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>Please be so kind to find attached the ALAC >>Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement. >> >>In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair >>requested that the Statement be transmitted to >>the ICANN public comment process, copying the >>ICANN Staff member responsible for this topic, >>with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC >>ratification. Once ratified, this Statement >>will be resubmitted incorporating updated >>ratification information in the introduction section. >> >>ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community >>E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >>Website: <https://atlarge.icann.org/>atlarge.icann.org >>Facebook: >><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>facebook.com/icann >><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge >>Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>@ >><https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge >> >> >>Content-Type: application/pdf; name="AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf" >>Content-Description: AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf >>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN.pdf"; >> size=241838; creation-date="Tue, 30 May 2017 23:04:44 GMT"; >> modification-date="Tue, 30 May 2017 23:04:44 GMT" >>Content-ID: >><<mailto:944AB3A64D187B4E9FF9870710BA62A2@pexch112.icann.org>944AB3A64D187B4E9FF9870710BA62A2(a)pexch112.icann.org> >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:BUowScGu0hA4GBTcD/FJ69QsbdHvvSOlLQrtTS2lb4fL6BFuFe5vGCTFzjx46jlFiJotAUKXPaJMd2YqQ+o7zna9yqtpeOTHDTw0pGRGA33OcCMeKkjtECf7zmZe7xgMo8faEMUrWb9wD34FaKxxKw== >>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >> >>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000100)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001128)(400125100095)(400001002128)(400125200095); >

1 0

A View on Emojis in domain names
by Carlton Samuels May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

Another view..... http://domainnamewire.com/2017/05/30/think-emoji-domains-not-much/#more-534… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

SAC095 SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain Names Published
by Julie Hammer May 29, 2017

May 29, 2017

Hi Everyone, Please note that the following SSAC Report has been published: SAC093: SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain Names dated 25 May 2017 In summary: - Because the risks identified in the Advisory cannot be adequately mitigated without significant changes to Unicode or IDNA (or both), the SSAC recommends that the ICANN Board reject any TLD (root zone label) that includes emoji. - Because the risks identified in the Advisory cannot be adequately mitigated without significant changes to Unicode or IDNA (or both), the SSAC strongly discourages the registration of any domain name that includes emoji in any of its labels. The SSAC also advises registrants of domain names with emoji that such domains may not function consistently or may not be universally accessible as expected. This Reports is attached and can also be found on the SSAC Reports <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> webpage. Cheers, Julie _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

6 7

Re: [ALAC] Consumer Safeguards Director - hired!
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2017

May 29, 2017

I am trying to arrange for him to meet the ALAC and Regional Leaders in Johannesburg. Alan At 23/05/2017 03:53 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >All I can say is that it is about time... > ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en > >Rinalia > > > >ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director > > > >LOS ANGELES 23 May 2017 ICANNannounced today >that Bryan Schilling will be joining as the >organization's first Consumer Safeguards >Director, reporting directly to Jamie Hedlund, >SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer >Safeguards. Bryan brings over 15 years of >international law and government affairs >experience to ICANN, the majority of which is >derived from working on data privacy and >technology issues in the global law enforcement and security space. > >Speaking about the role, Schilling commented, >"Over the years, I've developed a passion for >finding ways to balance the competing rights and >needs of individual users, businesses, >intellectual property owners and law enforcement." > >He went on to add, "I'm excited to bring that >passion to Jamie's team and to the >ICANNcommunity to raise awareness of ICANN's >current safeguards, facilitate discussion across >stakeholders concerning additional ways ICANN >could potentially improve its safeguard >mechanisms and help the community formulate >other collaborative means to address illegal, >infringing, and abusive activity impacting the DNS." > >A wide array of strong, experienced candidates >applied for the role, but Schilling stood out >due to his work on Internet public policy issues >with industry, civil society and government. >"Bryan's experience, energy and passion are a >great addition to ICANN," said Hedlund. "He will >hit the ground running, meeting with >stakeholders in Johannesburg and afterwards to >catalyze the community discussion on consumer >safeguards. Bryan will apply his strong >analytical and engagement skills to facilitate >community dialogue on the efficacy of existing >consumer safeguards, potential enhancements, >limits on ICANN's authority and expertise, and >voluntary initiatives to combat abuse." > >For several years, Bryan served as an Assistant >General Counsel with the United States' Federal >Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Office of >General Counsel. Working in the agency's >National Security Law Branch, he collaborated >with U.S. and international law enforcement >officers, prosecutors and analysts on >cross-border terrorism matters. He also provided >legal support to criminal and cyber >investigations including matters impacting the >Internet and the Domain NameSystem. > >After the FBI, Bryan went on to work for global >technology and manufacturing companies, >including Microsoft and Google. In those roles, >he worked with his colleagues, non-governmental >organizations, industry counterparts and >government agencies on cross-border regulatory >compliance matters, cybersecurity, privacy, >transparency, and legal issues surrounding government access to user data. > >Bryan began his legal career in private practice >in Washington, D.C. and he is a graduate of the >George Washington University School of Law and >the University of Cincinnati's College of Arts and Sciences. > >Bryan will work out of ICANN's Los Angeles office starting 1 June 2017. > > >Details > > > > * ICANN Announcements >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OWedABUnlyhUFeqlEbOHwZw739Udy1xnHT6M6uTAxb8WQccVDUg1HlXkL6717VDScjhpGBHOQDwFj8BDV8qjcBzmMYolHv5tBx3pFnylLIsV9aFk5RPOPd0G5n1GqVVKBvnLOJaej7MitARUP0y1xA== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000074)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001074)(400125100095)(400001002074)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

5 5

Huge Achievement for At Large /Was ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro May 24, 2017

May 24, 2017

Dear All, When I read this news, I could not help but think of the work over the years on addressing consumer rights and issues by the wider At Large community, previous Executives of RALOs around the world and previous ALAC members and At Large representatives to the Board over the years. This is a win for ALL!! Special acknowledgement to all the Accredited At Large Structures who over the years have contributed to raising issues related to end users from AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO, NARALO. The future has arrived. Celebrations AT LARGE! Warm Regards, Sala T [Signing in from Vanuatu] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:33 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director To: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en ------------------------------ ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director 23 May 2017 LOS ANGELES – 23 May 2017 – ICANN announced today that Bryan Schilling will be joining as the organization's first Consumer Safeguards Director, reporting directly to Jamie Hedlund, SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards. Bryan brings over 15 years of international law and government affairs experience to ICANN, the majority of which is derived from working on data privacy and technology issues in the global law enforcement and security space. [image: ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director] <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/bryan-schilling-300x330-23…> Speaking about the role, Schilling commented, "Over the years, I've developed a passion for finding ways to balance the competing rights and needs of individual users, businesses, intellectual property owners and law enforcement." He went on to add, "I'm excited to bring that passion to Jamie's team and to the ICANN community to raise awareness of ICANN's current safeguards, facilitate discussion across stakeholders concerning additional ways ICANN could potentially improve its safeguard mechanisms and help the community formulate other collaborative means to address illegal, infringing, and abusive activity impacting the DNS." A wide array of strong, experienced candidates applied for the role, but Schilling stood out due to his work on Internet public policy issues with industry, civil society and government. "Bryan's experience, energy and passion are a great addition to ICANN," said Hedlund. "He will hit the ground running, meeting with stakeholders in Johannesburg and afterwards to catalyze the community discussion on consumer safeguards. Bryan will apply his strong analytical and engagement skills to facilitate community dialogue on the efficacy of existing consumer safeguards, potential enhancements, limits on ICANN's authority and expertise, and voluntary initiatives to combat abuse." For several years, Bryan served as an Assistant General Counsel with the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Office of General Counsel. Working in the agency's National Security Law Branch, he collaborated with U.S. and international law enforcement officers, prosecutors and analysts on cross-border terrorism matters. He also provided legal support to criminal and cyber investigations including matters impacting the Internet and the Domain Name System. After the FBI, Bryan went on to work for global technology and manufacturing companies, including Microsoft and Google. In those roles, he worked with his colleagues, non-governmental organizations, industry counterparts and government agencies on cross-border regulatory compliance matters, cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, and legal issues surrounding government access to user data. Bryan began his legal career in private practice in Washington, D.C. and he is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law and the University of Cincinnati's College of Arts and Sciences. Bryan will work out of ICANN's Los Angeles office starting 1 June 2017. This message was sent to *salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com>* from *no-reply(a)external.icann.org <no-reply(a)external.icann.org>* ICANN News Alert ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 <https://www.icontact.com/signup> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24020961&l=6333&s=O5MD&m=10…> -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*

2 1

Consumer Safeguards Director - hired!
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

All I can say is that it is about time... https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en Rinalia ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-23-en#> LOS ANGELES – 23 May 2017 – ICANNannounced today that Bryan Schilling will be joining as the organization's first Consumer Safeguards Director, reporting directly to Jamie Hedlund, SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards. Bryan brings over 15 years of international law and government affairs experience to ICANN, the majority of which is derived from working on data privacy and technology issues in the global law enforcement and security space. [image: ICANN Hires First Consumer Safeguards Director] <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/bryan-schilling-300x330-23…> Speaking about the role, Schilling commented, "Over the years, I've developed a passion for finding ways to balance the competing rights and needs of individual users, businesses, intellectual property owners and law enforcement." He went on to add, "I'm excited to bring that passion to Jamie's team and to the ICANNcommunity to raise awareness of ICANN's current safeguards, facilitate discussion across stakeholders concerning additional ways ICANN could potentially improve its safeguard mechanisms and help the community formulate other collaborative means to address illegal, infringing, and abusive activity impacting the DNS." A wide array of strong, experienced candidates applied for the role, but Schilling stood out due to his work on Internet public policy issues with industry, civil society and government. "Bryan's experience, energy and passion are a great addition to ICANN," said Hedlund. "He will hit the ground running, meeting with stakeholders in Johannesburg and afterwards to catalyze the community discussion on consumer safeguards. Bryan will apply his strong analytical and engagement skills to facilitate community dialogue on the efficacy of existing consumer safeguards, potential enhancements, limits on ICANN's authority and expertise, and voluntary initiatives to combat abuse." For several years, Bryan served as an Assistant General Counsel with the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Office of General Counsel. Working in the agency's National Security Law Branch, he collaborated with U.S. and international law enforcement officers, prosecutors and analysts on cross-border terrorism matters. He also provided legal support to criminal and cyber investigations including matters impacting the Internet and the Domain NameSystem. After the FBI, Bryan went on to work for global technology and manufacturing companies, including Microsoft and Google. In those roles, he worked with his colleagues, non-governmental organizations, industry counterparts and government agencies on cross-border regulatory compliance matters, cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, and legal issues surrounding government access to user data. Bryan began his legal career in private practice in Washington, D.C. and he is a graduate of the George Washington University School of Law and the University of Cincinnati's College of Arts and Sciences. Bryan will work out of ICANN's Los Angeles office starting 1 June 2017. Details - ICANN Announcements

1 0

Board Resolutions from 18 May 2017 meeting
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

FYI Resolutions from the Board meeting last week. Link below and contents pasted at end of message. https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en Note: the Board had a long discussion during the meeting about the global amendment to the base new gTLD registry agreement. Worth having a look at the minutes when they are posted. Best regards, Rinalia Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 18 May 2017 1. *Consent Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1>* 1. *Approval of Minutes <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.a>* 2. *Initiating the Second Review of the Security and StabilityAdvisory Committee (SSAC) <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.b>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.02 – 2017.05.18.03 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.…>* 3. *Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Change to Move Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Responsibilities to Another Board Committee <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.c>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.04 – 2017.05.18.07 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.…>* 2. *Main Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#2>* 1. *Approval of the Global Amendment to the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#2.a>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2017.05.18.08 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#2.…>* 2. *Responding to Registry Operator Requests and GACAdvice Regarding the Release of Second-Level Country and Territory Names in New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#2.b>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.09 – 2017.05.18.10 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#2.…>* 3. *Executive Session - Confidential: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#3>* 1. *Extension of Ombudsman Contract <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#3.a>* - *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.11 – 2017.05.18.15 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#3.…>* 1. Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of Minutes Resolved (2017.05.18.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 16 March and 19 April 2017 Meetings of the ICANN Board. 2. Initiating the Second Review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws state that the ICANN Board 'shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee (as defined in Section 8.1) by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review'. Whereas, as part of the first Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Review, the SSAC Review Working Group submitted its Final Report to the ICANN Board on 29 January 2010. Whereas, on 28 July 2015 the Board resolved to defer the second SSAC Review until 2017. Resolved (2017.05.18.02), that the Board initiates the second SSAC Review in June 2017 and directs ICANN organization to post a Request for Proposal to procure an independent examiner to begin the review as soon as practically feasible. Resolved (2017.05.18.03), that the Board encourages the SSACto prepare for the second SSACReview by organizing a Review Working Party to serve as a liaison during the review and to conduct a self-assessment of effectiveness of implementation of recommendations from the first review. *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.02 – 2017.05.18.03* *Why is the Board addressing the issue?* This action is taken to provide a clear and consistent approach towards complying with ICANNBylaws' mandate to conduct reviews. Moreover, the Board is addressing this issue because the Bylaws stipulate organizational reviews take place every five years. In 2015 the ICANN Board had deferred the SSAC Review to commence in 2017 after community consultation. *Which stakeholders or others were consulted?* The OEC reached out to the SSAC leadership to confirm their support to initiate the second SSAC Review in 2017. *Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN(strategic plan, operating plan, and budget); the community; and/or the public?* Timely conduct of organizational reviews is consistent with ICANN's strategic and operating plans. The budget for the second SSAC Review has been approved as part of ICANN's annual budget cycle and the funds allocated to the SSACReview are managed by the ICANN organization team responsible for these reviews. No additional budgetary requirements are foreseen at this time and separate consideration will be given to the budget impact of the implementation of recommendations that may result from the review. *Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?* There are no security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS as the result of this action. 3. Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Change to Move Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Responsibilities to Another Board Committee Whereas, in 2008, the Board delegated to the Board Governance Committee (BGC) the responsibility for considering Reconsideration Requests, a responsibility that was previously delegated to a stand-alone committee of the Board. Whereas, the volume of Reconsideration Requests has increased exponentially in recent years with the introduction of the New gTLDProgram in 2012. Whereas, as a result of the increased volume of Reconsideration Requests, the BGC has focused more of its time on its Reconsideration duties and less on its other governance duties. Whereas, because the new Bylaws in effect on 1 October 2016 expanded the scope of the Reconsideration process, as well as ICANN's other accountability mechanisms and therefore, it is anticipated that the volume and complexity of accountability mechanisms filed, including Reconsideration Requests, might increase. Whereas, the BGC recommended, and the Board agreed, that the Board's performance would be enhanced through the development of a Board committee specifically charged with oversight of ICANNaccountability mechanisms, as the Board deems appropriate, with the BGC focusing on core governance activities. Whereas, the re-designation of the BGC's Reconsideration responsibilities set forth under Article 4, Section 4.2(e) requires an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws in accordance with Article 25, Section 25.2 of the ICANNBylaws. Whereas, on 3 February 2017, the Board directed the initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws amendment process to allow for the ICANN community to consider these proposed changes alongside the Board. Whereas, from 31 March to 10 May 2017, ICANN published the proposed amendments to Article 4, Section 4.2 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-amend-bylaws-article4-…> [PDF, 92 KB] of the ICANN Bylaws for public comment. Whereas, following consideration of the five public comments received, the Board has concluded that no revisions are required to the proposed Fundamental Bylaws revisions. Resolved (2017.05.18.04), the Board approves the attached proposed Fundamental Bylaws changes <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-fundamental-bylaws-cha…> [PDF, 92 KB] to Article 4, Section 4.2 of the ICANNBylaws. Resolved (2017.05.18.05), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to carry out the Fundamental Bylaws amendment approval process as set forth in Article 25, Section 25.2 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25> and Annex D, Article 1, Sections 1.1 through 1.4 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD> of the Bylaws. Resolved (2017.05.18.06), the Board requests that the BGC continue planning for the potential that the Empowered Community will approve the Fundamental Bylaws changes by evaluating potential additional charter revisions for the BGC, and by developing the inaugural charter of the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) while, where appropriate, taking into account the charter concerns raised in the public comment. Resolved (2017.05.18.07), the Board requests that in the event the Fundamental Bylaws are approved, the BGC coordinate with the BAMC to minimize any impact on requesters in the event that any Reconsideration Requests are pending at the time the revised Bylaws go into effect. *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.04 – 2017.05.18.07* Over the past several years, the BGC's work relating to Reconsideration Requests, which was delegated to the BGC by the Board, has increased exponentially, particularly with the New gTLDProgram. As a result of the increased volume of Reconsideration Requests, the BGC was required to focus more of its time on Reconsideration Requests and less on its other governance duties. Given that the new Bylaws in effect on 1 October 2016 expanded the scope of the Reconsideration process, as well as ICANN's other accountability mechanisms, it is anticipated that the volume and complexity of accountability mechanisms filed, including Reconsideration Requests, might increase and that the BGC's workload on Reconsideration Requests will not likely lessen. As part of its responsibilities, the BGC is tasked with "periodically review[ing] the charters of the Board Committees, including its own charter and work with the members of the Board Committees to develop recommendations to the Board for any charter adjustments deemed advisable." (BGC Charter, I.A, at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/charter-06-2012-02-25-en) In this role, the BGC recommended, and the Board agreed, that to enhance its own performance and focus on core governance activities, the Reconsideration responsibilities should be moved to a new committee dedicated to oversight of ICANN's accountability mechanisms as deemed appropriate by the Board. On 3 February 2017, the ICANNBoard directed the initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws amendment process to allow for the ICANN community to consider these changes alongside the Board. Under the Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.2 is part of the "Fundamental Bylaws," the group of Bylaws that can only be amended if the ICANN Board and ICANN's Empowered Community approve. Posting the proposed revisions for public comment is a key part of the Fundamental Bylaws approval process. (*See*Resolutions 2017.02.03.17 – 2017.02.03.19 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#2.a> .) From 31 March through 10 May 2017, ICANN published the proposed amendments to Article 4, Section 4.2 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-amend-bylaws-article4-…> [PDF, 92 KB] of the ICANN Bylaws for public comment. Five comments were submitted during the public comment period, which the Board has considered. In general, three of the five commenters were supportive of the proposed Fundamental Bylaws changes. One commenter did not express any opinion for or against the proposed Bylaws changes, and one commenter was not in support of making the Fundamental Bylaws change at this time. As discussed in the Report of Public Comments <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-bylaws-bgc-17ma…> [PDF, 375 KB], the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Afnic noted the Board's responsibility to organize its work to suit the needs of the Board. Afnic praised the effort to better organize the workload within the Board. The Business Constituency (BC) and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups ( NCSG) noted general support for the Fundamental Bylaws changes as proposed. ALAC, while not questioning the Fundamental Bylaws changes as proposed, requested a "deeper knowledge" on the scope of the BAMC. One commenter, DotMusic Limited (DML), expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposed changes on the its currently pending Reconsideration Request. DML stated its opinion that the Fundamental Bylaws changes should not be considered until the Reconsideration Requests that are currently pending have been resolved by the BGC. Three of the commenters provided inputs on the scope of the draft BGC and BAMC charters that were provided for informational purposes to illustrate how the Fundamental Bylaws changes could be implemented. ALAC and NCSG also noted their support for the respect of the new processes to achieve Fundamental Bylaws revisions. The NCSG noted that having a non-controversial item about the Board's organization of its work is a good "test case" for the accountability reforms and the new Empowered Community process. As always, the Board thanks and appreciates the commenters for their submissions. The Board has considered all the comments and finds that no further changes to the proposed Fundamental Bylaws amendments are necessary. With respect to the concerns expressed about the potential delay on pending Reconsideration Requests because of the proposed Fundamental Bylaws changes, the Reconsideration process has in place time requirements as well as evidentiary consideration requirements that address the commenter's concerns. The Board has also requested that any implementation of the new Bylaws be done in a way that minimizes any potential impacts on pending Reconsideration requestors. With respect to the concerns regarding the scope of the BAMC and the BGC once the Fundamental Bylaws changes have been implemented, Article 14 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article14> of the Bylaws specifies that the Board has the power to organize and establish Board Committees and to delegate to the Committees all legal authority of the Board except as set forth in Article 4, Section 14.2 of the Bylaws. The Board previously directed that "if the proposed amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws is approved in accordance with Article 25.2 of the Bylaws, the Board will constitute the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC)." (*See*Resolutions 2017.02.03.18-2017.02.03.19 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#2.a>.) Accordingly, once the proposed amendments are approved, the Board will constitute the BAMC with oversight of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms as the Board deems appropriate, approve the charter, and establish the BAMC and the BGC membership. The Board will also approve a revision of the BGC charter to delete the Reconsideration process responsibilities from the BGC, and move other responsibilities as appropriate from the BGC to the BAMC. In addition, the BAMC may be vested with new responsibilities related to more general oversight of ICANN's accountability mechanisms outside of the Reconsideration process. Comments received on the potential charter revisions (which were provided for information purposes during the comment period) should be taken into account, as appropriate, by the BGC as it is developing the new BGC and BAMC charters for Board consideration. Finally, the Board thanks the Empowered Community for the work in becoming ready for this first exercise of a power. This action will have no financial impact on the organization and no direct impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. This is an Organizational Administrative Action for which public comment was received. 2. Main Agenda: 1. Approval of the Global Amendment to the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement Whereas, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) informed ICANN organization that it wished to initiate negotiations to proposed changes to the Registry Agreement <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…> [PDF, 651 KB] on 16 July 2014 and ICANNorganization engaged in bilateral negotiations with the RySG Working Group on proposed contract amendments. Whereas, ICANN organization commenced a public comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201…> from 31 May 2016 to 20 July 2016 on the proposed contract amendments and received twenty-two comments by individuals, organizations, and groups. Whereas, ICANN organization and the Working Group reviewed the public comments and ICANN organization published an initial summary report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-proposed-amend-…> [PDF, 404 KB] on 17 August 2016 followed by a supplemental public comment report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reissued-report-comments-propos…> [PDF, 545 KB] on 22 December 2016 with additional analysis and an updated Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] revised to reflect the comments received. Whereas, ICANN organization and the Working Group agreed to voting procedures and ICANNorganization engaged a third-party voting administrator to hold a vote of Applicable Registry Operators. Whereas, the Registry Agreement defines the approval of Applicable Registry Operators as (1) the affirmative approval of the Applicable Registry Operators whose payments to ICANNaccounted for two-thirds of the total amount of fees paid by all the Applicable Registry Operators in the immediately previous calendar year and (2) the affirmative approval of a majority of the Applicable Registry Operators. Whereas, the voting period concluded on 10 April 2017 with the requisite thresholds achieved by Applicable Registry Operators. Whereas Section 7.7(c) of the Registry Agreement states that both the ICANN Board and Applicable Registry Operators must approve the Global Amendment in order for it to be deemed an approved amendment pursuant to the terms of the Registry Agreement. Resolved (2017.05.18.08), the Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] and the Registry Agreement as revised <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amende…> [PDF, 1.16 MB] are approved and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Global Amendment. *Rationale for Resolution 2017.05.18.08* *Why is the Board addressing the issue now?* The process to amend the Registry Agreement began in July 2014 when the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) notified ICANN organization that it wished to initiate negotiations for contract amendments. Following a discussion period between the Working Group and ICANN organization, the proposed contract amendments were submitted for public comment in the form of the Global Amendment. ICANNorganization and the Working Group reviewed the public comments and revised the Global Amendment based on comments received. As outlined in Section 7.7(c) of the Registry Agreement, both the ICANN Board and Applicable Registry Operators must approve the Global Amendment in order for it to be deemed an approved amendment pursuant to the terms of the Registry Agreement. Applicable Registry Operators approved the Global Amendment upon the conclusion of the voting period on 10 April 2017. The Registry Agreement defines the approval of Applicable Registry Operators as both: (1) the affirmative approval of the Applicable Registry Operators whose payments to ICANNaccounted for two-thirds of the total amount of fees paid, pursuant to the Registry Agreement, the immediately previous calendar year; and (2) the affirmative approval of a majority of the Applicable Registry Operators at the time such approval is obtained. With the Board's approval, the Global Amendment would achieve both required approvals and would, therefore, be effective and deemed an amendment to the Registry Agreement following a 60-day notice from ICANN organization to registry operators. *What is the proposal being considered?* The Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] is the result of bilateral negotiations between ICANNorganization and the RySGWorking Group as well as a subsequent public comment proceeding <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201…>. Section 7.7(a) of the Registry Agreement provides a mechanism enabling ICANNorganization or the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) to periodically initiate negotiations to discuss revisions to the Registry Agreement. The proposed revisions in the Global Amendment largely focus on technical corrections and clarifications with a few substantive changes as outlined below: - Revisions to Section 2.9 (Registrars) and 2.10 (Pricing for Registry Services), which enable registry operators to change the pricing terms of the Registry-Registrar Agreement without seeking ICANN organization's approval since the Registry Agreement does not specify a specific price for domain names registration; however, such notice must still be given to registrars that have executed a Registry-Registrar Agreement for the TLD. Registry operators remain subject to the substantive requirements of the provision whether or not ICANN organization is informed of price increases by the registry operator. - Revisions to Section 6.7 (Fee Reduction Waiver), which permit ICANNorganization to exercise its discretion to determine to reduce the fees payable by a registry operator under the Registry Agreement. Under the provision, ICANNorganization would retain discretion to determine whether a reduction in fees is appropriate and the terms of any such reduction. - Revisions to Section 7.5 (Change of Control; Assignment and Subcontracting), which create a new defined term, "Affiliated Assignee," and have the effect of facilitating reorganizations by a registry operator without triggering a consent right of ICANN. - Revisions to Specification 13; Section 11 (.BRAND TLD Provisions), which were made in response to requests by .BRAND TLDoperators and specify that global amendments (i.e. amendments approved pursuant to Section 7.6 or 7.7 of the Registry Agreement) amend the provisions of Specification 13, such that amendments that impact .BRAND TLDregistry operators must be approved by .BRAND TLDregistry operators. Full details of the changes within the Global Amendment, including technical corrections and clarifications, are available in the published summary of changes table <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-global…> [PDF, 487 KB] and in the published cumulative redlines to the Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amende…> [PDF, 1.01 MB]. *Which stakeholders or others were consulted?* ICANN organization and the Working Group collaborated frequently throughout the development of the Global Amendment to negotiate and discuss proposed revisions, to consider comments received from the public comment proceeding, and to agree to the process of a vote for Applicable Registry Operators. The Global Amendment was submitted for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201…>from 31 May 2016 to 20 July 2016. After the close of the public comment period, ICANNorganization received twenty-two comments by individuals, organizations, and groups and published an initial summary report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-proposed-amend-…> [PDF, 404 KB] on 17 August 2016. ICANN organization and the Working Group collectively considered comments received and incorporated certain revisions into the Global Amendment. On 22 December 2016, ICANN organization published a supplemental public comment report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reissued-report-comments-propos…> [PDF, 545 KB] with additional analysis as well as an updated Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] revised to reflect the comments received. *What concerns or issues were raised by the community?* After the proposed Global Amendment was posted for public comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201…> , ICANNorganization and the Working Group collectively reviewed concerns and issues raised during the public comment period. Commenters expressed their views in five key areas: 1. Overall support: comments generally supportive of the proposed amendments to the Registry Agreement, highlighting that the proposed amendments clarify ambiguous language and fix grammatical and typographical errors. 2. Request for additional edits or clarity: suggestions for further changes or additional clarity to the amendments proposed within the Global Amendment. 1. With respect to the request for added clarity in comments received, ICANNorganization and the Working Group collectively agreed to additional modifications that further clarified Section 4.3(e) and provisions within Specification 5, 6, and 13. 2. With respect to comments received pertaining to additional edits to those listed above, following the process outlined in the registry agreement, ICANNorganization and the Working Group concluded that no additional changes would be made. While both parties reviewed and appreciate these comments, comments relating to sections where no amendment was proposed were not considered as part of this negotiation round. If Section 7.7 is implicated in the future, ICANN may consider these comments in determining its approach for such future negotiation process. 3. Overall concerns: concerns over aspects of the proposed amendments, including: 1. The removal of the requirement that a registry operator notifies ICANNorganization of increases in the price charged by the registry operator to register a domain name in the TLD in Section 2.9 and 2.10. 2. Transparency of the proposed fee waiver provision in Section 6.7 in which ICANNorganization can determine to reduce the fees payable by a registry operator under the Registry Agreement. 4. Registry Agreement text and other topics out of scope: comments on the existing provisions in the Registry Agreement where no amendment was proposed. These comments include thoughts on topics such as dotless domains and sections of the Registry Agreement where no amendment was proposed as well as general comments about the Registry Agreement. 5. Process concerns: thoughts on the negotiation and review process of the Registry Agreement. Various commenters expressed concern regarding the fact that negotiations took place between ICANNorganization and only a small portion of the Registries Stakeholder Group. *What significant materials did the Board review?* As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Global Amendment as published 22 December 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB]; 2. Cumulative redlines to the Registry Agreement of all modifications resulting from the Global Amendment (includes redlines from before and after the public comment period), December 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amende…> [PDF, 1.01 MB]; 3. Summary of changes table (includes cumulative redlines of all modifications to the Registry Agreement resulting from the Global Amendment as well as rationale), 3 February 2017, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-global…> [PDF, 487 KB]; 4. Clean version of the Registry Agreement amended by the Global Amendment (amended version of the Registry Agreement should the Global Amendment achieve Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN Board approval), December 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amende…> [PDF, 1.16 MB]; 5. Reissued Staff Report of public comment proceeding (reissued to include analysis from the Working Group and ICANN organization of the comments received), 22 December 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reissued-report-comments-propos…> [PDF, 545 KB]; 6. Initial Staff Report of public comment proceeding (to summarize the comments received), 17 August 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-proposed-amend-…> [PDF, 404 KB]; 7. Public Comment on the Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLDRegistry Agreement, 31 May 2016, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-201… >; 8. Current Registry Agreement (current version of the New gTLDRegistry Agreement), 9 January 2014, < https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…> [PDF, 651 KB]; 9. Global Amendment Voting Process Frequently Asked Questions, 17 February 2017, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/global-amendment-registry-agree…> [PDF, 1.01 MB]; 10. Global Amendment Webinar Slide Deck, 7 February 2017, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/global-amendment-base-registry-…> [PDF, 2.23 MB]; 11. Global Amendment Webinar Recording, 7 February 2017, < https://participate.icann.org/p2mn69k02an/?proto=true>; and 12. Global Amendment Webpage on ICANN.org, < https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-amendment-base-new-gtld-regist… >. *What factors has the Board found to be significant?* The Board carefully considered the proposed Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] agreed to by the Working Group and ICANN organization as part of the bilateral negotiations. The Board also considered the public comments received for the Global Amendment along with the summary and analysis <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reissued-report-comments-propos…>[PDF, 545 KB] of those comments. The Board acknowledges that the Global Amendment was voted on and approved by Applicable Registry Operators as of 10 April 2017, the conclusion of the requisite voting period. As outlined in Section 7.7(c) of the Registry Agreement, both the ICANNBoard and Applicable Registry Operators must approve the Global Amendment in order for it to be deemed an approved amendment pursuant to the terms of the Registry Agreement. The Board acknowledges the requests for additional edits or clarity and concerns raised during the public comment period to revisions within the Global Amendment. ICANNorganization and the Working Group collaborated to address these requests for edits and concerns in the supplemental public comment report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reissued-report-comments-propos…> [PDF, 545 KB] and in the updated Global Amendment <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glo…> [PDF, 424 KB] revised to reflect comments received. The Board acknowledges the concerns expressed by some community members regarding suggested improvements on the negotiation, review process, and transparency of the Registry Agreement amendment negotiation process. The Registry Agreement provides for negotiations to be between ICANN organization and the Working Group designated by the RySG. While ICANNorganization and the Working Group conducted the negotiation process for the proposed Global Amendment according to the terms outlined in the Registry Agreement, ICANN organization intends to further collaborate with the Working Group to develop a process that keeps the ICANNcommunity more informed if contract negotiations are triggered in the future. These efforts may include improved communications to the ICANNcommunity that the negotiation process has been initiated and periodic updates to the ICANNcommunity concerning overall status of discussions with the Working Group. Finally, the Board acknowledges and appreciates comments on the existing provisions in the Registry Agreement where no amendment was proposed. While ICANN organization and the Working Group reviewed these comments, comments relating to sections where no amendment was proposed were not considered as part of this negotiation round. ICANNorganization and the Working Group may consider these comments if negotiations under Section 7.7 are triggered in the future. *Are there positive or negative community impacts?* The Board's approval of the Global Amendment offers positive technical and operational benefits to registry operators. The proposed Global Amendment includes revisions intended to bring the Registry Agreement up to date with operational and technical expectations between registry operators and ICANNorganization. Some of the positive technical impacts to registry operators include modifying the reporting requirements to take into account the timing of a TLD's delegation and clarifying technical specifications within the contract to accurately reflect current practices. Overall, the revisions clarify certain provisions to limit misinterpretations of the requirements within the Registry Agreement. Additionally, this negotiation and amendment process provides a mechanism for ICANNorganization and registry operators to collaborate to maintain and update the Registry Agreement as needed, enabling a periodic review of the terms that guide both parties. *Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN(strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?* There are no significant fiscal impacts expected if the ICANNBoard approves the Global Amendment. *Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the Domain NameSystem?* There are no expected security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the Domain NameSystem if the Board approves the Global Amendment. The proposed Global Amendment in fact includes terms intended to bring the Registry Agreement up to date with operational and technical expectations between Registry Operators and ICANNorganization. As part of ICANNorganization's administrative function, ICANN posted the draft Global Amendment for public comment on 31 May 2016. 2. Responding to Registry Operator Requests and GAC Advice Regarding the Release of Second-Level Country and Territory Names in New gTLDs Whereas, Specification 5, Section 4 of the New gTLDRegistry Agreement requires that certain country and territory names on internationally recognized lists be reserved by registry operators within the TLD. The reserved country and territory names may be released to the extent a registry operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s) or the registry operator may propose the release of the names subject to review by the GAC and approval by ICANN. Whereas, since 21 August 2014, registry operators representing over 60 new gTLDs have submitted Registry Services Evaluation Policy requests for ICANN approval of the implementation of a new registry service requesting the release of country and territory name labels required to be reserved by Specification 5. Whereas, in the GAC's Singapore Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…> [PDF, 113 KB] (11 February 2015) the GAC advised the Board that "ICANN should work with the GAC to develop a public database to streamline the process for the release of country and territory names at the second level, as outlined in Specification 5. The database will inform whether individual GAC Members intend to agree to all requests, review them case by case, or not agree to any. The absence of input from a government will not be considered as agreement." Whereas, the GAC created a database <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Country+and+Territory+Names+as+seco…> to facilitate notification of registry operator requests for the release of country and territory names. The database provides a "country or organization" the option to authorize the release of the country or territory name, authorize the release of the country or territory names specific to brand TLDs, require notification for all release requests, or not indicate a position on this matter. Resolved (2017.05.18.09), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is directed to take all steps necessary to grant ICANN approvals for the release of country and territory names at the second-level to the extent the relevant government has indicated its approval in the GAC's database. Resolved (2017.05.18.10), the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is directed to continue to engage with the GAC to (1) collaborate on possible enhancements to the GAC database to document approvals for the release of country and territory names at the second-level, (2) to periodically remind GACmembers to update or offer their determination within the GAC's database, and (3) report back to the Board if there is support for a different approach to generally release the second-level country and territory names. *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.09 – 2017.05.18.10* *Why the Board is addressing the issue?* Section 4 of Specification 5 (Schedule of Reserved Names) of the Registry Agreement addresses reservations of country and territory names as follows: *The country and territory names (including their IDN variants, where applicable) contained in the following internationally recognized lists shall be withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator at All Levels:* *4.1. the short form (in English) of all country and territory names contained on the ISO 3166-1 list, as updated from time to time, including the European Union, which is exceptionally reserved on the ISO3166-1 list, and its scope extended in August 1999 to any application needing to represent the name European Union <http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1… <http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1…>>;* *4.2. the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names, Part III Names of Countries of the World; and* *4.3. the list of United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names;* *provided, that the reservation of specific country and territory names (including their IDN variants according to the registry operator IDN registration policy, where applicable) may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s). Registry Operator must not activate such names in the DNS; provided, that Registry Operator may propose the release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN. Upon conclusion of Registry Operator's designation as operator of the registry for the TLD, all such names that remain withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator shall be transferred as specified by ICANN. Registry Operator may self-allocate and renew such names without use of an ICANNaccredited registrar, which will not be considered Transactions for purposes of Section 6.1 of the Agreement.* In August 2014, new gTLDregistry operators began submitting requests to ICANNorganization through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy process proposing to implement a new registry service to release country and territory names required to be reserved by Specification 5, Section 4 of the Registry Agreement. Following the evaluation of the proposals to release these names, ICANNorganization determined that no significant risk has been identified for the stability and security, or competition of the DNS related to the release of reserved country and territory names. ICANN organization prepared amendments to Exhibit A of the applicable Registry Agreements to implement the requests. The amendments have been the subject of public comment and were submitted to the GAC for review. In total, ICANN organization has posted Registry Services Evaluation Policy proposals and amendments concerning more than 60 new gTLDs. Registry Agreement amendments resulting from the registry operator requests for the release of country and territory names have remained open and ICANNorganization continues to receive additional Registry Services Evaluation Policy requests for the same registry service. To note, certain legacy registry agreements differ on whether second-level country and territory names need to be reserved. For example, .ASIA and .COOP are required to reserve the names, but .COM and .BIZ do not have such a requirement. Pursuant to Section 2.4.D of the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and the accompanying Implementation Notes, if the implementation of a proposed registry service requires a material change to the Registry Agreement, the preliminary determination will be referred to the ICANN Board for consideration as appropriate. Additionally, the GAC had issued advice to the Board in the 11 February 2015 Singapore Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…> [PDF, 113 KB] concerning the release of reserved country and territory names. The GAC advised the Board that "ICANN should work with the GAC to develop a public database to streamline the process for the release of country and territory names at the second level, as outlined in Specification 5. The database will inform whether individual GAC Members intend to agree to all requests, review them case by case, or not agree to any. The absence of input from a government will not be considered as agreement." On 30 July 2015, the GACpublished a database <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Country+and+Territory+Names+as+seco…> to facilitate the notification preference of each government involved in the GAC. The database provides notification requirements for various governments and indicates which countries have waived the right to authorize the release of the country or territory name. In addition to addressing the Registry Services Evaluation Policy requests of registry operators, the Board's action today addresses the item of advice from the GACconcerning the release of reserved country and territory names. This action is part of the ICANN Board's role to address advice put to the Board by the GAC. Article 12, Section 12.2(a) of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The ICANNBylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. *What is the proposal being considered?* To address the requests from registry operators for ICANNapproval to release reserved second-level country and territory names along with the advice from the GAC on the same topic, the Board is taking action to direct ICANNorganization to take all steps necessary to grant ICANNapprovals for the release of country and territory names at the second-level only to the extent the relevant government has indicated its approval in the GAC's database. By taking this action, ICANN would permit registry operators to release country and territory names from the reserved list where the database indicates that a registry operator does not need prior authorization to release the specific country or territory name. The remaining country and territory names would continue to be reserved pending a registry operator reaching agreement with the government on the release of specific names or the government updating its position in the GAC's database. ICANN organization will continue to periodically engage with the GAC to collaborate on possible enhancements to the GACdatabase to document approvals for the release of country and territory names at the second-level, remind GACmembers to update or offer their determination within the GAC's database, and to gauge whether there is support for a different approach to generally release the second-level country and territory names. ICANNorganization will also provide notice of this determination to registry operators who have requested the release of country and territory names to resolve outstanding Registry Agreement amendments to implement Registry Services Evaluation Policy requests. *Which stakeholders or others were consulted?* Since 24 September 2014, ICANN organization initiated fourteen (14) public comment forums to obtain feedback from the community on the amendments to implement the proposed new registry service: 1. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .NEUSTAR TLD, 19 September 2014, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-neustar-2014-09-19-en >; 2. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .BMW and .MINI TLDs, 11 December 2014, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en >; 3. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPIEGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH TLDs, 6 January 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-01-06-en >; 4. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .EMERCK, .HAMBURG and .BERLIN TLDs, 2 March 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/emerck-hamburg-berlin-amendment-2015-… >; 5. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HONDA, .AXA, .EPSON, .HSBC, .XYZ and .COLLEGE TLDs, 31 March 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-03-31-en >; 6. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .SONY, .ARCHI, .BIO and .SAARLAND TLDs, 13 May 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-05-13-en >; 7. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .KOMATSU AND RICOH TLDs, 26 May 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-05-26-en >; 8. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .GLOBAL, .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE TLDs, 21 June 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-06-21-en >; 9. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .BROTHER, .GEA, .ACO, .SECURITY, .PROTECTION, .THEATRE and .RENT TLDs, 1 September 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-09-01-en >; 10. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs, 15 December 2015, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-12-15-en >; 11. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .TORAY and .PICTET TLDs, 28 March 2016, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2016-03-28-en >; 12. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HYUNDAI, .KIA and .GODADDY TLDs, 27 April 2016, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2016-04-27-en >; 13. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .SOFTBANK, .ART and .CARAVAN TLDs, 19 July 2016, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2016-07-19-en>; and 14. Release of Country and Territory Names within the .IKANO, .SAXO, .SCOR, .SANDVIK, .WALTER, .SANDVIKCOROMANT, .VISTA, .VISTAPRINT, .BARCLAYS, .BARCLAYCARD and .HERMES TLDs, 12 January 2017, < https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2017-01-12-en >. Various members of the community submitted comments, including the Brand Registry Group, International Trademark Association's Internet Committee, the ICANN Business Constituency, various government entities, the ICANNIntellectual Property Constituency, the Registries Stakeholder Group, and a registrar. In addition, ICANN organization notified the GAC when each request from a registry operator was posted for public comment. Though the GAC has not submitted comments under the Public Comment Periods for Registry Services Evaluation Policy requests for the release of country and territory names, the GAC has issued GAC Advice as well as formal correspondence to ICANN organization leadership regarding the release of reserved second-level country and territory names. *What concerns or issues were raised by the community?* Public comments received from the broader community are in favor of the introduction of country and territory domain names in the new gTLD namespace. The arguments made in favor to the release of the country and territory domain names were as follows: - There is demand from end users for these names, which stand to improve user experience as well as the value delivered to them through the maintenance of strict quality controls. - Country and territory names are already in use in certain legacy gTLDs and many ccTLDs. - If the registry operator has a robust framework in place to address the concerns of the government, certain government entities would be open to considering the release of their country and territory names. Some community members also raised concerns over the use of the Registry Services Evaluation Policy as a measure to handle registry operator requests for the release of country and territory names and suggested ICANNorganization end this process and instead focus on resolving the matter of country and territory names at the second-level. The arguments made in favor to the release of the country and territory domain names for .BRAND TLDs were as follows: - These names would allow development and promotion by brand owners of localized and targeted content. - The use of these names would enhance security and trust and reduce phishing and fraud. - The use of these names would provide the benefit of "protecting and honoring intellectual property". - The use of these names would not result in user confusion since consumers will recognize that the country or territory name is used in the "private" context of the brand. - These names will facilitate online commerce in developing nations by encouraging registries to create customized and localized content (in non-English languages) for consumers in such regions. The arguments made in favor to the release of the country and territory domain names for Geographic (Geo) TLDs were as follows: - Geographic TLDs by definition have the support of the official governments of their respective municipalities and represent spaces "where the likelihood of abuse or misconduct in the use of country and territory name is low". - The use of these names would allow enhanced community-building for Internet users in those geographic areas and enable businesses to provide targeted service to those communities. The arguments made against the release of the country and territory domain names for Geographic (Geo) TLDs were as follows: - Certain country and territory names with a nexus to the geographic area reflected in the TLDcould potentially cause confusion. The arguments made against the release of country and territory domain names from certain government entities were as follows: - Countries are the ones to decide the use and application of their name and that of towns and communities located within their territory and that country and territory names should not be released without the authorization of the related country. In the Singapore Communiqué <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…>[PDF, 113 KB], the GAC noted that it was in the process of developing a database that will "inform whether individual GACMembers intend to agree to all requests, review them case by case, or not agree to any. The absence of input from a government will not be considered as agreement." On 23 April 2015 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-crocker-2…> [PDF, 180 KB], the GAC "cautioned ICANN not to consider the absence of input from a government as agreement, due to the fact that a sensitive issue such as this calls for consultation with the relevant government." On 30 July 2015, the GACpublished a webpage <https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Country+and+Territory+Names+as+seco…> containing a table that "provides the respective country's requirements for notification of such requests regarding the relevant country and territory name versions. […] The table currently lists GAC Members' requirements, although some have yet to state their requirements." That same day, the Chair of the GAC issued a letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-atallah-3…> [PDF, 181 KB] to the President of the Global Domains Division notifying him of the publication of the list that shows which countries wish to be removed from future notifications regarding this issue. In order to facilitate communication between the GAC's webpage and registry operators, ICANNorganization published an informational Country and Territory Names webpage <https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names>referencing the GAC's database. *What significant materials did the Board review? What factors did the Board find to be significant?* The Board reviewed several materials and considered several significant factors during its deliberations about whether to approve the request. The significant materials and factors that the Board considered as part of its deliberations included, but were not limited to, the following: - Specification 5, Section 4 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…> [PDF, 651 KB]; - GAC Singapore Communiqué, 11 Feb 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…> [PDF, 113 KB] - Correspondence from GAC Chair to Chair of ICANN Board, 23 April 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-crocker-2…> [PDF, 180 KB]; - Country and Territory Names as second-level domains in new gTLDs requirements for notification list, < https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Country+and+Territory+Names+as+seco… >; - Correspondence from GAC Chair to President of Global Domains Division, 30 July 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-atallah-3…> [PDF, 181 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .NEUSTAR TLD, 22 December 2014, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-neustar-country…> [PDF, 113 KB] - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .BMW and .MINI TLDs, 29 January 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-bmw-mini-amendm…> [PDF, 316 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPIEGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH TLDs, 6 March 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 369 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .EMERCK, .HAMBURG and .BERLIN TLDs, 30 April 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-country-territo…> [PDF, 509 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HONDA, .AXA, .EPSON, .HSBC, .XYZ and .COLLEGE TLDs, 29 May 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 633 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .SONY, .ARCHI, .BIO and .SAARLAND TLD, 7 July 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 638 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .KOMATSU and .RICOH TLDs, 3 August 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-komatsu-ricoh-c…> [PDF, 632 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .GLOBAL, .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE TLDs, 11 August 2015, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 637 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .STUDY, .COURSES, .LAMBORGHINI, XN--3OQ18VL8PN36A, .VOLKSWAGEN, .BUGATTI, .AUDI and .DELTA TLDs, 10 February 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 666 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .TORAY and .PICTET TLDs – 16 May 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 506 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HYUNDAI, .KIA and .GODADDY TLDs, 17 June 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 460 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .SOFTBANK, .ART and .CARAVAN TLDs, 14 September 2016, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 478 KB]; - Summary and Analysis Report of Public Comments: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .IKANO, .SAXO, .SCOR, .SANDVIK, .WALTER, .SANDVIKCOROMANT, .VISTA, .VISTAPRINT, .BARCLAYS, .BARCLAYCARD and .HERMES TLDs, 24 March 2017, < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ctn-release-tld…> [PDF, 400 KB]. *Are there positive or negative community impacts? Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the Domain NameSystem?* Country and territory names are not reserved in certain legacy TLDs, which have not caused apparent security, stability or resiliency issues in relation to the Domain Name System. It is expected that the release of names in new gTLDs that are approved in the GAC database will not cause security, stability or resiliency issues. There is no foreseeable fiscal impact to ICANN and this resolution would resolve the handling of requests for the release of country and territory names at the second-level through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy as well as outstanding contract amendments as a result of these requests. *Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?* The Registry Services Evaluation Policy is an ICANN consensus policy, effective as of 15 August 2006. Consistent with the policy, ICANN organization posted the Registry Agreement amendments for public comment as the implementation of the proposed service required what was considered a material change to the Registry Agreement. 3. Executive Session - Confidential: 1. Extension of Ombudsman Contract Whereas, the current Ombudsman's contract concludes on 27 July 2017. Whereas, the scope and breadth of the Ombudsman's office is still being reviewed by the Community through its Work Stream 2 work. Whereas, in order to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsman remains operational, the BGC has recommended that the Board extend the Ombudsman's contract for another year following the conclusion of his current contract, which expires on 27 July 2017; the extension will cover the period from 28 July 2017 through 27 July 2018, or until the Board selects ICANN's next Ombudsman, whichever is sooner. Resolved (2017.05.18.11), the Board approves the extension of Herb Waye's contract to serve as ICANN's Ombudsman for an additional year, covering the time period from 28 July 2017 through 27 July 2018, or until the Board selects ICANN's next Ombudsman, whichever is sooner. Resolved (2017.05.18.12), the Board asks the Compensation Committee to evaluate the Ombudsman's compensation package to determine if any revisions might be appropriate before the contract extension is effectuated. Resolved (2017.05.18.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to effectuate the Ombudsman's contract extension. Resolved (2017.05.18.14), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to continue monitoring the community work relating to the Ombudsman, and ensure that, following the community work, the search for the next Ombudsman begins as soon as feasible and practicable. Resolved (2017.05.18.15), specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANNBylaws until the President and CEO determines that the confidential information may be released. *Rationale for Resolutions 2017.05.18.11 – 2017.05.18.15* ICANN's Bylaws require ICANNto maintain an Office of the Ombudsman. ( *See* Article V of the Bylaws at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#V <https://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#V>.) Having an ICANN Ombudsman positively affects the transparency and accountability of ICANN as the Ombudsman is one of the three main accountability mechanisms within ICANN. Currently, the Community is involved in discussing ICANN's accountability mechanisms, including the scope and breadth of the Ombudsman's office. Once the Community work is completed, there will be changes to the role and responsibilities of ICANN's Ombudsman, which could significantly impact the position description for the role. The current Ombudsman, Herb Waye, was appointed as ICANN's Ombudsman in July 2016, and his current contract expires on 27 July 2017. A new Ombudsman has not yet been selected since searching for ICANN's next Ombudsman before the Work Stream 2 work relating to the scope of the Ombudsman's office is completed may prove inefficient and premature. However, ICANNmust ensure that the Ombudsman's office remains operational during this time period. Mr. Waye, has been serving as the Ombudsman for approximately nine months, and served as the Adjunct Ombudsman for 10 years prior to that. He is extremely familiar with and well versed in the complex issues facing ICANN, including the New gTLDProgram and other initiatives currently under way. By all accounts, Mr. Waye has been serving ICANN well as the Ombudsman since his term began in July 2016. The Board also notes that there are discussions to possibly add a new Adjunct Ombudsman, a role that the current Ombudsman served for 10 years. This is in specific response to concerns raised during the Board's discussion about the need to evaluate the workload of the Ombudsman Office to make sure the Office can deal with complaints that may be submitted pursuant to this new Community Anti-Harassment Policy. If the Ombudsman's Office were to be expanded with an Adjunct Ombudsman, this could be an opportunity to consider gender diversity, as well as deal with any short-term issues in terms of workload of the Office. As there has been a budget for an ICANN Ombudsman since 2004 when the first Ombudsman was appointed, this decision does not have a financial impact on ICANN, the community, or the public that was not already anticipated or included in the budget, outside of the anticipated potential costs of the search for the new Ombudsman. This decision will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment. Published on 23 May 2017

1 0

TWO SSAC REPORTS PUBLISHED
by Julie Hammer May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Hi Everyone, Please note that the following SSAC Reports have been published: SAC093: SSAC Comments on the Draft Recommendations of the CCWG- Accountability-WS2 on SO/AC Accountability dated 18 May 2017 In summary, the SSAC: - agrees that it would be beneficial to determine and implement those best practices which are applicable to SSAC’s structure and purpose - does not believe it is appropriate to incorporate an implementation review into the scope of future ATRTs - suggests that it would be more appropriate to incorporate such a review into the 5-yearly independent organizational reviews - does not support the formal “Accountabillity Roundtable” as proposed - suggests a more informal approach should be adopted, which involves the exchange of views, experiences and best practices during the course of regularly scheduled meetings between SO/AC chairs only - agrees that the IRP should not be made applicable to activities of SO/AC/Groups. SAC094: SSAC Response to the Request for Advice Relating to the 2012 New gTLD Round dated 22 May 2017 This Report reviews and highlights in detail the recommendations from past SSAC Reports which have relevance to the 2012 New gTLD Round Both Reports are attached and can also be found on the SSAC Reports <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> webpage. Cheers, Julie

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Fw: Interesting article about parked domains
by Alan Greenberg May 21, 2017

May 21, 2017

At 21/05/2017 01:48 PM, Andrei Kolesnikov wrote: >In my previous practice: up to 10% of search >revenue went to parked domains (in Russia) in >2010 before Google and Yandex changed keywords >and reference links measurements, took it down below 1%. Yes, that is my roughly experience as well - my statement was about current search results. >Expired domains, auctions is a significant part >of registrars business. There is nothing wrong >when buying good names at extra price. The >process of expiration is kind of uniform for >gTLD world, however ccTLDs use different schemes. Indeed, and even the monetization of expired domains could help some registrar's bottom lines. Which is why we did not push to eliminate it. The practice that we found inappropriate was sometimes deliberately not letting registrants know their names were expiring (or putting no effort into it) and then IF they allowed renewal, charging high prices for renewal based on their monetization experience. Or simply because they could. Selling to other bidders once the name was truly expired and not renewed is fair game. As is picking up dropped names and offering to sell them back to original registrant for high prices. Unsavory perhaps, but all legit. Ever since ICANN started, there has been a to-and-fro game being played between ICANN and registrars with ICANN trying to provide a "safety net" (that is the expression that was used) for accidentally expired names and registrars finding a way around it. The best example is this one day in 2003 when ICANN announced that a PDP had "restored the safety net" and registrars announcing they had found a way to bypass it - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2004-09-21-en and https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2004-09-21-en. Alan >--andrei > >Ð²Ñ, 21 Ð¼Ð°Ñ 2017 Ð³. Ð² 10:06, Alan >Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: >Domain parking is not a new issue for At-Large. >We have a long and interesting history related to this topic. > >In 2007, there was a prevalent practice among a >number of registrars and domainers called >"domain tasting" ( >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting) >In short it was a completely legitimate (that is >not against any rules) proactive which allowed a >domain to be registered and monetized, and if it >did not prove profitable, to cancel the >registration at no net cost (ie free). This >allowed the "tasting" on many millions of >domains per month. The practice was also used to >some extent for disposable domains for >generating spam (it was before phishing was >common). If I remember correctly, less than 1% >were kept because they proved profitable (often >typos of real domain names). The ALAC requested >a GNSO PDP to stop the practice. Once the new >policy was developed and adopted, it made >tasting to expensive to be practical in the general case. > >The issue of parked monetized pages also arose >when we were requesting a PDP on ensuring the >rights of registrants who accidentally let their >domain expire. It was common for the registrar >to monetize the page at expiration or soon >after, allowing them to make some extra money, >and also gauge whether the domain was "valuable" >or not. If it was valuable, they could >take over the registration (virtually all >registration agreements let them do that) and >then use it themselves or auction it off. We >ultimately decided to not object to the >practice, since doing so would impact the >registrars revenue stream and would make it much >more difficult to achieve the real aims of the >PDP. This proved to be a correct analysis. We >did ensure that the monetized page clearly said >it was an expired domain and told the registrant >how to get it back. And made sure the price did >not go up immediately due to what was learned during monetization. > >Interestingly we also in a few cases probably >increased the monetization because it was the >practice in some cases to NOT interrupt the >domain and monetize it. This allowed the domain >to work as if it was still owned by the original >registrant until it was too late to renew the >registration (generally 30 days) and then the >registrar could take it over without any way for >the registrant to get it back at a reasonable price. > >This is a discussion that we could have, but I >think it rather unlikely that ICANN would stop >the practice, as it directly goes to how the >domain is being used and its content. The only >real issue within ICANN's current remit is that >in many cases, a parked domain is one that is >found by incorrectly typing a URL. A few years >ago it was common to his monetized pages through >a search engine, but these days the search sites >seem pretty good at filtering them out - or at >least that is my experience (largely with Google). > >Alan > > > >At 21/05/2017 03:11 AM, Kan Kaili wrote: > >>Hi again, >> >>This article may have nothing to do with >>Google. Sorry for that ... (although Google >>did provide the platform for these activities) >> >>However, it also tells how to make money at the >>end-users' expense quite a few years ago. Over >>time, according to some research, this has >>already grown into an industry by itself. >> >>This is one of the reasons why the At-Large >>community needs to look into domain parking. >> >>Kaili >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <mailto:ocl@gih.com>Olivier MJ CrÃÂ©pin-Leblond >>To: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:50 PM >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fw: Interesting article about parked domains >>Dear Kaili, >>that article dates from 2010. Google has since retired Adsense for domains. >> >><https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/2456470?visit_id=1-63630945756510…>https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/2456470?visit_id=1-63630945756510… >> >>Kindest regards, >>Olivier >> >>ps. the author is the owner of GroovyPost which >>has nothing to do with Google. >>On 21/05/2017 08:22, Kan Kaili wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>Thanks a lot for sharing. Just read the >>>article titled "Make Easy Money from Your >>>Parked Domains with Google AdSense for Domains". >>> >>><https://www.groovypost.com/howto/google/google-adsense-for-domains-review-m…>https://www.groovypost.com/howto/google/google-adsense-for-domains-review-m… >>> >>>This article by Google itself teaches you how >>>to make money from parked domains, although at >>>the expense of consumers and end-users. >> >>I am used to think of Google as "DO NO >>EVIL". Well, maybe not always ... :( >> >>Kaili >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >>ALAC mailing list >> >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> >> >>At-Large Online: >> >><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >>ALAC Working Wiki: >> >> >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >>-- >> >> >>Olivier MJ CrÃÂ©pin-Leblond, PhD >> >> >><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >>---------- >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>) >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Disposition: inline >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:7sXV3AmCalKoBN7ReQFVT+9krJSVNT9opo/tHyqla3T79FIXvHX5wkzAUCesK2GUz8NiTRANbzCiJU5pjIOhK/oFhwwpjAjS+8yDSgSzJ+bMP47F8pt4pOGTbSm10pjKpgPT2/22vNaz9/hO9JZIPQ== >>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >> >>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >-- >-- {ak}

1 0

Call for Comments: GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Dear All, In response to the public comment proceeding on the GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP)<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-20…>, the ALAC penholders have developed comments in response to the specific questions asked in the PDP’s Work Tracks. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in the following wiki workspaces. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on the draft. * Work Track 1<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> * Work Track 3<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> * Work Track 4<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Please note that the ALAC response to Work Track 2 is still in development. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 22 May 2017 at 22:00 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Blog on clarifying the differences between Ombudsman and Complaints Office
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Dear all, This blog post has been published today: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/clarifying-the-roles-of-the-icann-complaint… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/clarifying-the-roles-of-the-icann-complaint…> It’s essentially a chart highlighting the differences between the Ombudsman and the Complaints Office. I believe some of us might find it useful. Best regards, León

1 0

Fwd: Notification of Board Seat 11 Nomination
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

As was noted for the nominations of Directors by At-Large and the GNSO, this nomination is is being ratified by the Empowered Community Administration as a formal designation of Director to serve effective the end of the Johannesburg meeting. this is Chris's third and final term. Alan >From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> >Subject: Notification of Board Seat 11 Nomination >Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:38:06 +0000 > >Dear Empowered Community Administration, >cc. ICANN Secretary and Decisional Participants > >On behalf of the ccNSO Chair, Katrina Sataki, please find included a >notification concerning the nomination of Chris Disspain for Board >Seat 11 per ICANN AGM 2017. > >Kind Regards, > >Bart Boswinkel

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Domain Abuse Reporting Tool
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Evan, it is not clear what fraction of the "abuse" being captured here contravenes policy. To the extend that it does, and where the information is such that it is actionable I do hope that we will see action. But I think that the real issue here is that this is the first time in my recollection that ICANN has taken a position other than "this is outside of our remit". Jamie Hedlund has said that we need to look at abuse situations because because domain names are being used, and PERHAPS there is something that we can do. We now have a staff-developed tool that may help quantify things and with the granularity to actually identify individual contracted parties that seem to be focal points for this type of behaviour. Although I have rarely been accused of being an optimist in this area, I do see grounds for hope, and if we see behaviour in ICANN that we support, we need to be vocal about it. There will be others who would want this type of information suppressed. That would be a shameful outcome. Alan At 18/05/2017 09:05 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Based on what I have read in the lists so far, >the process of reporting has not really been a >problem. The complaints come from how problems >are resolved (or, as the case may be, not resolved but closed anyway). > >ICANN seems not to care at all about resolving >complaints to the satisfaction of the >complainants, just itself. That is a problem >with attitude and corporate behaviour, and the >best technical tools will not solve that. > >I hope that not only the reporting processes, >but also the complaint resolution mechanisms, >will be addressed when you meet on this topic. > >â£- Evan (via mobile)â > >On 18 May 2017, 02:14, at 02:14, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I am optimistic we will have a session on it in Jo'burg. > > > >Alan > >-- > >Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > > > >On May 18, 2017 2:02:24 AM EDT, Harold Arcos <harold.arcos(a)gmail.com> > >wrote: > >>Dear Rinalia > >> > >>Thank you for information about that valuable tool. > >>This tool represents a tremendously valuable source of knowledge and > >>ongoing assessment. > >> > >>Kind regards > >> > >> > >>On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, > >>> > >>> This may be of interest to you: > >>> > >>> Domain Abuse Reporting Tool (DART Project) - A tool that empowers > >>policy > >>> makers, consumer advocates and users. > >>> > >>> > >>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-dart-13may17-en. > >>> pdf > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Rinalia > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ALAC mailing list > >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >>> > >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> ALAC Working Wiki: > >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ > >>> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > >>> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

1 0

Domain Abuse Reporting Tool
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, This may be of interest to you: Domain Abuse Reporting Tool (DART Project) - A tool that empowers policy makers, consumer advocates and users. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-dart-13may17-en.pdf Best regards, Rinalia

3 2

Things some noticed about ICANN Tax Returns
by Carlton Samuels May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Um, well.... http://domainnamewire.com/2017/05/16/icann-published-tax-return-heres-learn… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Public Comment: GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Questions
by Maureen Hilyard May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Hi everyone Thank you to Alan for drafting up some responses for Worktrack #3 on String Contentions. Many thanks to Andrei, Satish, and Evan for their work on Work Tracks #1 and #3. I have still to hear from our At-Large lawyers on Worktrack #2. If you would like to make further comments on the submissions that have already been made, please do so on the following pages. Work track #1 For overall picture and outreach etc <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> : Work Track #2 Legal considerations <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track #3 String Contentions, etc <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track #4 IDNs <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Any comments much appreciated. Regards Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2017

May 13, 2017

Seun, that is not an acceptable process. Doing a Consensus Call implies that this is a decision of the ALAC and the Bylaws make it clear that it is not. ICANN legal counsel has been very clear on that. As well, although not a likely occurrence, if there is a removal of a Director by the Board, that must be carried out immediately. Alan At 12/05/2017 02:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Thanks for your response, while I understand this is a non-issue, my >preference is that the Chair do a quick consensus call of the ALAC >when such happens and ALAC decision recorded accordingly. > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On May 12, 2017 06:05, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks for the vote of endorsement Seun. >I can always rely on you for a good question. In this case, the >answer is relatively easy. We will add a clause saying that for all >actions related to the EC designating Directors selected by the SOs, >At-Large or the NomCom under Bylaws section 7.2(a), or for the >removal of Directors by the Board under Bylaws 7.11(a)(i)(B) and >7.11(a)(ii), the ALAC is deemed to have instructed the EC >Representative to act in accordance with the Bylaws. >Alan >At 11/05/2017 11:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Hello Alan, >>Am fine with your endorsement on this by default. However I am not >>sure what problem is to be corrected in our ROP since the Bylaw hasn't changed. >>I think it's just fine for you to do what you have just done now in future. >>Regards >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>On May 12, 2017 4:22 AM, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO >>Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a >>small issue related to the appointment of Directors. >>Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the >>NomCom, under the new Empowered Community model, the actual >>appointment (technically under California statutes, they are >>"designated") to the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) >>through the EC Administration. The EC Administration is not a true >>body but the name given to the five representatives of the >>"Decisional Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. >>Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any >>discretion to second-guess the selecting body. >>However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of >>Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express >>instructions of their AC/SO. >>It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the >>Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. >>Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. >>As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with >>the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, >>endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors >>(Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this >>decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. >>I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to >>correct this inadvertent problem. >>Alan >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>

2 1

GNSO Subsequent Procedures CC2 questions
by Maureen Hilyard May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

My dear colleagues In the interest of time, because this PC is due on the 22 May, two WorkTrack teams have initiated comments and we would like to consult further. Please add any comments (and your name if you wish) in the workspace indicated. (The questions that go with the responses, are at the top of the workspace) Work Track 1 - an Overview <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track 4 - IDNs <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Your input would be greatly appreciated :) Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Thanks for the vote of endorsement Seun. I can always rely on you for a good question. In this case, the answer is relatively easy. We will add a clause saying that for all actions related to the EC designating Directors selected by the SOs, At-Large or the NomCom under Bylaws section 7.2(a), or for the removal of Directors by the Board under Bylaws 7.11(a)(i)(B) and 7.11(a)(ii), the ALAC is deemed to have instructed the EC Representative to act in accordance with the Bylaws. Alan At 11/05/2017 11:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Am fine with your endorsement on this by default. However I am not >sure what problem is to be corrected in our ROP since the Bylaw hasn't changed. > >I think it's just fine for you to do what you have just done now in future. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On May 12, 2017 4:22 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO >Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a >small issue related to the appointment of Directors. > >Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the NomCom, >under the new Empowered Community model, the actual appointment >(technically under California statutes, they are "designated") to >the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) through the EC >Administration. The EC Administration is not a true body but the >name given to the five representatives of the "Decisional >Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. > >Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any >discretion to second-guess the selecting body. > >However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of >Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express >instructions of their AC/SO. > >It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the >Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. > >Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. > >As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with >the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, >endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors >(Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this >decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. > >I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to >correct this inadvertent problem. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a small issue related to the appointment of Directors. Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the NomCom, under the new Empowered Community model, the actual appointment (technically under California statutes, they are "designated") to the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) through the EC Administration. The EC Administration is not a true body but the name given to the five representatives of the "Decisional Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any discretion to second-guess the selecting body. However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express instructions of their AC/SO. It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors (Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to correct this inadvertent problem. Alan

2 1

Fwd: Notification of Board Seat 15 Selection
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

FYI >From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> >To: Empowered Community Administration >Subject: Notification of Board Seat 15 Selection >Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:09:24 +0000 > >Dear Empowered Community Administration, >cc. ICANN Secretary and Decisional Participants > >On behalf of the ALAC Chair, Alan Greenberg, please find attached a >notification concerning the selection for Board Seat 15. > >Kind regards, >Heidi > >Heidi Ullrich >VP, Policy Development & At-Large Relations >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

INTA Report and Presentation to the RT
by Carlton Samuels May 10, 2017

May 10, 2017

Please see attached the full report and the presentation to the RT by the International Trademark Association (INTA) Exec Director on results of the study on impact of new gTLDs on brand owners. Note that based on the results - and the subjects are their own members - INTA is cautiously opining the results represent "*an indicator of a trend and not the trend itself"*. Circular reasoning aside, the principal indicator of trend reported says *"registrations of new TLDs were overwhelmingly made for defensive purposes...*". The report itself is 75 pages but if you read the explanatory notes you will learn how to get to the good parts. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0