Dear Colleagues,

Here is a proposal for the questions to the Board. Today is the deadline... Sorry, for the late email! Please let me know ASAP if you have any corrections/additions!

--

1. ICANN’s mission

As the Board adopts ICANN’s Strategic Plan, Operating Plans and related budgets, what criteria does the Board use to determine whether an activity is within ICANN’s mission?

With ICANN’s funding levelling or on the decline, do you consider all the activities as equally important or do you see some activities as of a higher priority for fulfilling ICANN’s mission?

2. Confusing similarity

The joint ccNSO -SSAC working party has provided feed-back and input to ICANN Org’s proposed guideline to operationalize the amended Fast Track process (inclusion of Risk Mitigation to overcome the only pending case of confusing similarity). In addition and overstepping the original request, the working party suggests that ICANN takes a final decision on the one and only pending case. Once the current pending case under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is resolved, we propose that all processes and procedures relating to the evaluation of confusing similarity be reviewed and evaluated, with a two-fold goal. Firstly, originally (in 2009) the process and procedures for evaluation of strings of the new gTLD round and the overall policy for IDN ccTLDs were supposed to be consistent. However, due to the incremental changes of the ccTLD Fast Track process since 2009, the discrepancy between these processes has increased. Secondly, since the introduction of sting similarity review in 2009, the methods to evaluate string similarity and underlying scientific insights in this area have evolved and, therefore, a review of the original approach is highly desirable. 

Should we still strive to harmonize string similarity review under the two processes? If so, how could we all ensure this given both are developed under different PDPs?

3. Progress on IFR

During our Barcelona meeting we informed you that the ccNSO - despite all the efforts - has not been able to appoint to the IFRT a representative from a ccTLD manager that is not a member of the ccNSO. We suggested to appoint a representative from a ccNSO member ccTLD on an interim basis to ensure that ccTLD community which is one of the direct customer groups of PTI, is represented on the review by 3 members. Since then ICANN Org reached out to all the appointing entities to seek support for this solution. It is our understanding that one of the appointing entities objected, with reference to the Bylaws.

As this Review has been launched under auspices of the Board, could you provide an update on the current status? How will it be ensured that 3 members of the ccTLD community are included in the IFRT?

Looking to the future, the next IFR shall be convened in five years, measured from the date the previous was convened (September 2018). It is clear that with the growing number of ccNSO members, in five years it will be even more difficult to find a non-member ccTLD representative. To change this, a fundamental Bylaw change is required. What is the process to introduce the change in time for the next IANA Functions review?

---

Kind regards,

]{atrina