18 May 2017
Resolved (2017.05.18.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 16 March and 19 April 2017 Meetings of the ICANN Board.
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.
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.
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 [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 [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 and Annex D, Article 1, Sections 1.1 through 1.4 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.
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. (SeeResolutions 2017.02.03.17 – 2017.02.03.19.)
From 31 March through 10 May 2017, ICANN published the proposed amendments to Article 4, Section 4.2 [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 [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 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)." (SeeResolutions 2017.02.03.18-2017.02.03.19.) 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.
Whereas, the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) informed ICANN organization that it wished to initiate negotiations to proposed changes to the Registry Agreement [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 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 [PDF, 404 KB] on 17 August 2016 followed by a supplemental public comment report [PDF, 545 KB] on 22 December 2016 with additional analysis and an updated Global Amendment [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 [PDF, 424 KB] and the Registry Agreement as revised [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.
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 [PDF, 424 KB] is the result of bilateral negotiations between ICANNorganization and the RySGWorking Group as well as a subsequent public comment proceeding. 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:
Full details of the changes within the Global Amendment, including technical corrections and clarifications, are available in the published summary of changes table [PDF, 487 KB] and in the published cumulative redlines to the Registry Agreement [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 commentfrom 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 [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 [PDF, 545 KB] with additional analysis as well as an updated Global Amendment [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, ICANNorganization and the Working Group collectively reviewed concerns and issues raised during the public comment period. Commenters expressed their views in five key areas:
What significant materials did the Board review?
As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following:
What factors has the Board found to be significant?
The Board carefully considered the proposed Global Amendment [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[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 [PDF, 545 KB] and in the updated Global Amendment [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.
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 [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 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.
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_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 [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 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:
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 gTLDnamespace.
The arguments made in favor to the release of the country and territory domain names were as follows:
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:
The arguments made in favor to the release of the country and territory domain names for Geographic (Geo) TLDs were as follows:
The arguments made against the release of the country and territory domain names for Geographic (Geo) TLDs were as follows:
The arguments made against the release of country and territory domain names from certain government entities were as follows:
In the Singapore Communiqué[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 [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 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 [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 webpagereferencing 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:
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.
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.
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.) 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