The ICANN Board approved resolutions on new gTLD, ATRT Recommendations, and XXX. Resolution to approve new gTLD Applicant Guidebook on 20-June-2011 in Singapore: RESOLVED THE BOARD ADOPTS A WORKING TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK AND LAUNCH OF THE NEW gTLD PROCESS, AND THAT WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE, BUT THE PICTURE IS AS YOU HAVE SEEN IT ON THE SCREEN. RESOLVED, AS SET FORTH IN THE TIMETABLE, ICANN WILL TARGET 15th OF APRIL 2011 AS THE DATE FOR PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE GAC SCORECARD, ALONG WITH APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK EXTRACTS SHOWING CHANGES. RESOLVED, THE BOARD INTENDS TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS SET FORTH IN THE TIMELINE IN TIME FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE NEW gTLD IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AT AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE ICANN BOARD TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, THE 20th OF JUNE 2011, AT THE ICANN MEETING IN SINGAPORE. NOTE: THE BOARD ALSO INTENDS TO HOLD ITS USUAL MEETING ON FRIDAYMORNING, 24th OF JUNE 2011, TO CONCLUDE THE MIDYEAR MEETING. Cherine: Board wants a mature & responsible relationship; want a responsible launch with the right safeguards. Rita: we can talk forever. There will be further refinements but we owe it to applicants. PDT: want a launch party in Singapore. We intend to stick to this timeline. Adopted unanimously (including GAC) Resolution to implement ATRT final recommendations: RESOLVED, THE BOARD RECEIVES THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND DIRECTS STAFF TO PUBLISH THEM AS SOON AS FEASIBLE.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT ICANN PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH FINAL PROPOSED PLANS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS IN TIME FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS INPUT ON THE COST OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THE ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ADVICE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE APRIL 2011 BOARD MEETING CONCERNING THE ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR '12 BUDGET; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WORK WITH THE BOARD ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS INVOLVING THEIR ORGANIZATIONS; RESOLVED, TO FULLY RESPOND TO THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT ICANN STAFF DEVELOP PROPOSED METRICS TO QUANTIFY AND TRACK ACTIVITIES CALLED FOR IN THE AFFIRMATION AND ATRT REPORT, AND BENCHMARKS THAT ENABLE ICANN TOCOMPARE ITS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY-RELATED EFFORTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES' BEST PRACTICES. Adopted unanimously, with one abstention. XXX Contract Approval: WHEREAS, ON THE 17TH OF MARCH 2011, THE BOARD AND THE GAC COMPLETED A FORMAL BYLAWS CONSULTATION ON THOSEITEMS FOR WHICH ENTERING THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH GAC ADVICE. NOW RESOLVED, THE BOARD AUTHORIZES THE CEO OR THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT FOR THE XXX sTLD IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM POSTED FOR PUBLICCOMMENT IN AUGUST 2010.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD ADOPTS AND FULLY INCORPORATES HEREIN ITS RATIONALE FOR APPROVING THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT WITH ICM FOR THE XXX sTLD. AND THERE'S A LINK PROVIDED. TO SUPPORT THE ENTERING INTO THE PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD AND THE GAC HAVE COMPLETED A GOOD-FAITH CONSULTATION UNDER THE BYLAWS -- AND THE SECTION IS GIVEN -- AS THE BOARD AND THE GAC WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE BYLAWS, THE BOARD INCORPORATES ANDADOPTS AS SET FORTH IN THE RATIONALE THE REASONS WHY THE GAC ADVICE WAS NOTFOLLOWED. THE BOARD'S STATEMENT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF GAC MEMBERS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES FALLING WITHIN THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. Bruce abstained due to Melbourne IT conflict of interest. Ram abstained due to Afilias conflict of interest. Sebastien abstained due to conflict since he is on board of ICM. George Sadowsky: oppose this motion because: insufficient proof of broad-based support from the designated community. Board should not have accepted the review panel decision. . XXX will encourage blocking of the TLD by governments. An incitement to fracture the root. A convenient excuse for political regimes. ICANN has duty to uphold global public interest, which includes 6.5 billion people with diverse views and cultures. IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE MUST PROCEED CAREFULLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE DELEGATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, GLOBAL-LEVEL DOMAINS, CONSISTING OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS THAT MAY RUN COUNTER-TO THE SENSIBILITIES OF SIGNIFICANT SEGMENTS OF THE WORLD'SPOPULATION. IN RETROSPECT, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF ICM'S APPLICATION -- THAT IS, THE sTLD PROCESS -- DID NOT INCLUDE A FORMAL OBJECTION PROCEDURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIVERSE CULTURAL CONCERNS THAT COULD ARISE. IF DOT XXX WERE APPROVED, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE A VICTORY OF COMPULSORY ADHERENCE TO PROCESS RATHER THAN A SERIOUS DISCUSSION REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE OF THE DNS AND THE INTERNET. IT WOULD BE A VICTORY OF PROCESS OVER GOALS AND OF MEANS OVER ENDS. AND IF, IN THE FUTURE, THERE ARISE SIGNIFICANT UNANTICIPATED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, WILL OUR DEFENSE BE LIMITED TO THE EXCUSE, "BUT I JUST FOLLOWED THE PROCESS"? SO IN SPITE OF SOME POSSIBILITY OF RESULTING IN SOME USEFUL CHANGE, I BELIEVE ON BALANCE THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION CURRENTLY BEFORE THE BOARD THREATENS THE LONG-RUN INTEGRITY OF THE DNS AND WORKS AGAINST THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST. IT SHOULD BE DEFEATED. Katim: oppose resolution because it harms relations with the GAC, endangering ICANN. BUT FOR ME, I THINK THE DEAL-KILLER HAS BEEN THE -- MY OWN EVALUATION AND MY ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT THAT I PERCEIVE THIS WOULD HAVE ON ICANN'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE GAC IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND VITAL CONSTITUENCY OF ICANN, AND THE GAC WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GAC THAT ICANN WAS DEALING WITH THREE YEARS AGO AND, DARE I SAY, FIVE YEARS AGO. THERE HAS BEEN A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE CENTRAL GRAVITY, AS IT WERE, OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE GAC IN ICANN. MANY GOVERNMENTS ARE NOW WAKING UP TO THE REALITY OF THE NEED FOR THEM TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN WHAT ICANN IS DOING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY. AND SO IT IS FOR THIS VERY REASON THAT I THINK THAT FOR ICANN TO, ON THIS MATTER, PUT ASIDE THE ADVICE OF THE GAC AND ITS MEMBERS WOULD, I THINK, BE UNCONSTRUCTIVE AND, IN THE END, POISONOUS TO THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WE NEED TOBUILD AND A POSITIVE ONE AT THAT, BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF -- AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD. AND I SAY THIS ALSO BECAUSE IN MY MIND, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND GOVERNMENTS AND GAC IS PROBABLY THE MOST SINGLE EXISTING RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE. I SAY EXISTENTIAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS ONE RELATIONSHIP THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT ON ICANN. YOU AND I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUSHING AN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUMS AROUND THE WORLD FOR THE TRANSFER OF SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY ICANN TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES AND TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE MANY GOVERNMENTS THAT WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE ICANN GONE. AND SO FOR THAT VERY REASON, NOT THAT I -- I SEE THIS AS A PANIC MOVE OR WHATEVER, BUT I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF ENGAGEMENT AND OF CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNWISE FOR US TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION. AND IT'S FOR THAT VERY REASON, I INTEND TO VOTE AGAINST IT. Bertrand: voting in favor of resolution. Share George and Katim’s conerns. If we did not approve this contract, we will surely get a .xxx application in the upcoming round – without control of a sponsored TLD contract. Global public interest is satisfied because it is not insulting to other cultures. Erika Mann: voting yes. Wants to take the risk and face the challenge. XXX is not going away. Ray Plezak: voting Yes. We are not slaves to process. Kuo Wei: voting No. Concerned about global community and the ICANN mechanism. Steve Crocker: We have been attentive to the GAC. Rita Rodin: Voting Yes. Voted against .xxx in 2007. IRP said that was an improper vote. This is a lose-lose for board. Either we ignore the IRP or ignore the GAC. This is a debate about respect for processes. We can join together and stumble forward with this TLD. Suzanne Woolf: Blocking / filtering is not unique to this TLD. Carries with 4 no votes.