[ALAC] Board Resolutions from 18 May 2017 meeting

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.b.rationale>*
      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.c.rationale>*
      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.a.rationale>*
      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.b.rationale>*
      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.a.rationale>*

   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-s...>
[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-chan...>
[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-s...>
[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-17may...>
[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-approved...>
[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-2016...>
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-n...>
[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-propose...>
[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-glob...>
[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-glob...>
[PDF,
      424 KB] and the Registry Agreement as revised
      <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-registry-agreement-amended...>
[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-glob...>
[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-2016...>.
      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-amended...>
[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-2016-05-31-en>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-n...>
[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-propose...>
[PDF,
      545 KB] with additional analysis as well as an updated Global
      Amendment
      <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glob...>
[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-2016...>
      , 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-glob...>
         [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-amended...>
         [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-amended...>
         [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-propose...>
         [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-n...>
         [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-2016...
         >;
         8. Current Registry Agreement (current version of the New gTLDRegistry
         Agreement), 9 January 2014, <
         https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved...>
         [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-agreem...>
         [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-a...>
         [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-registr...
         >.

      *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-glob...>
[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-proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-22dec16-en.pdf>[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-propose...>
[PDF,
      545 KB] and in the updated Global Amendment
      <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-registry-agreement-glob...>
[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-en...>
[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+secon...>
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_decoding_table.htm>>;*

      *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-en...>
[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+secon...>
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-2015-0...
         >;
         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-en.pdf>[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-23...>
[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+secon...>
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-30...>
[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-approved...>
[PDF,
         651 KB];
         - GAC Singapore Communiqué, 11 Feb 2015, <
         https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-en...>
         [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-23...>
         [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+secon...
         >;
         - Correspondence from GAC Chair to President of Global Domains
         Division, 30 July 2015, <
         https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/schneider-to-atallah-30...>
         [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-amendme...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-territor...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-ct...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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-tlds...>
         [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

[ALAC] Board Resolutions from 18 May 2017 meeting

Rinalia Abdul Rahim