February 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

FW: Draft report to Board
by Gomes, Chuck Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The attached response to the Board request for input regarding the involvement of individual users in the GNSO appears to be very near completion. Note that it was prepared by an ALAC WG with several participants from the GNSO. Because there is just a few days until responses to the Board are due and because there is a GNSO Council meeting today, I am forwarding the document to the Council just in case it is possible to discuss it in the meeting today or at least initiate an online process for Council review in the next few days, thereby allowing the GNSO to meet the Board's deadline. Please note that I suggested the following minor edits: - There is a typo in the next to last full paragraph on page 2: "Moreover, it is felt that the term "entity users" is the current Bylaws is overly restrictive . . ." I think the second 'is' should be 'in'. - The second sentence in the 2nd WG recommendation on page 4 reads, "However, it is similarly important for the views of such participants have an opportunity to be expressed at the GNSO Council level, and that they effectively participate, in ways that to be defined by Stakeholder Groups, in the decisions of Council." I suggest some minor edits (in CAPS) so that it reads like this: "However, it is similarly important THAT the views of such participants have an opportunity to be expressed at the GNSO Council level, and that they effectively participate, in ways that ARE to be defined by Stakeholder Groups, in the decisions of THE Council." My understanding is that Alan will be preparing a final version at the end of the day today. Because I will not be able to participate in the Council call today, let me say that I think the substance of the report is fine and I suggest that the Council endorse the recommendations included. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:35 AM To: avri(a)ltu.se; Adam Peake; carlos aguirre; William Drake; Vanda Scartezini UOL; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Sébastien Bachollet; Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; mwong(a)piercelaw.edu; Robin Gross; Ken Bour; Milton Mueller; zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com; At-Large Staff; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger; BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE; jbladel(a)godaddy.com Subject: Draft report to Board Folks, here is the latest version. The changes are: - Replacement of the rationale for not making specific recommendations on the NCSG - Avri's suggestion as modified by Milton with two further additions on my part: - Pointing out that what we are reporting is consistent with the WHEREAS of the Board resolution - Adding the parenthetical that the work being done by is not being done in a bubble but "with appropriate community input and consultation". I believe that this is factually accurate and includes an opportunity to say that groups in formation have been involved. I can live without this parenthetical if people feel it is inappropriate, but I think that it adds something. - Correcting the error that Milton pointed out where the term "user" was used instead of "individual user". I would like to freeze the document at this point except for cases where one of the WG members feels they cannot live with a statement. I believe that there were no other strong issues raised (without opposition). If anyone comes in now with a new issue, I would suggest that it be added as a minority report due to lack of time to fully discuss. Barring major problems, I will reformat as necessary late on (my) Thursday and submit to Avri and Cheryl for transmittal to the Board. The people who I have as participants are are: GNSO: James Bladel, Avri Doria, William Drake, Robin Gross, Zahid Jamil, Milton Mueller, Mary Wong ALAC: Carlos Aguirre, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Adam Peake, Vanda Scartezini, Baudouin Schombe, Danny Younger, ICANN Staff: Ken Bour, Robert Hoggart, At-Large staff - PLEASE SPECIFY WHO TO INCLUDE Alan

1 0

Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18feb09-en.htm Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter 18 February 2009 A community-wide working group has been established by the ICANN Board to undertake a review of ICANN's Geographic Regions. The Working Group has developed a draft charter to guide its efforts. All members of the ICANN community are now invited to review that draft charter [PDF, 44K] and share comments and observations with the Board and community through 24 March 2009. Background: Geographic diversity is a fundamental component of the ICANN organization. The ICANN Bylaws (Article VI Section 5) currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe. The ICANN Geographic Regions were originally created to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN Board and were subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to the GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO. An ICANN Board resolution in 2000 directed Staff to assign countries to geographic regions on the basis of the United Nations Statistics Division's current classifications, and introduced the concept of "citizenship" in relation to the definition of ICANN Geographic Regions. Over time, the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) has developed concerns about the implementation of the ICANN Geographic Regions and related representational issues. The ccNSO Council approved a resolution in 2007 recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The Board determined at its meeting in Los Angeles on 2 November 2007, that because any potential change to ICANN Geographic Regions could have widespread effect in ICANN, the views of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees should be sought by the Board. The Board asked the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, to provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions - including the proposal to appoint a community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues, as suggested by the ccNSO. Explanation: At its November 2008 meeting in Cairo, Egypt, the Board authorized the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, consult with all stakeholders, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The companion resolutions on the issue stated: Resolved (2008.11.07.08), the Board authorizes the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, consult with all stakeholders, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The Board requests that all interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees nominate two individuals to serve on the working group, the composition of which the Board would like to approve at the December Board meeting. Resolved (2008.11.07.09), the Board requests the working group, as its first order of business, to draft and seek community input on a proposed charter, and submit the draft document for community review, and Board consideration and approval at the March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City. In drafting the charter, the working group is directed to focus, but not limit, its work on the criteria for assigning countries, dependencies and recognized geopolitical entities to a Geographic Region, and to take into consideration the relevant ccNSO Board paper, the recent GNSO comments, and other community advice - including the GAC's original advice on the topic in 2000. Further, the Board directs ICANN Staff to support these efforts. Since that time the ALAC, ccNSO and GNSO have named specific members to join the working group and the GAC has established a methodology for monitoring and contributing to the group's progress. David Archbold of the .ky domain has accepted the responsibility to chair the working group efforts. The full roster of working group members is as follows: David Archbold (ccNSO member - .ky) Chair Fahd Batayneh (ccNSO member - .jo) Olga Cavalli (GNSO Council member, Nominating Committee Appointee)(vice chair) Zahid Jamil (GNSO Council member, Business Constituency) Janis Karklins (GAC Chair) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC Chair) Carlton Samuels (LACRALO Secretariat) Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Background Documents: ICANN Bylaws Article VI, Section 5: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm - VI-5 ICANN Geographical Regions - Final Report by the ccNSO Regions Working Group For Submission to the ICANN Board: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.p… Minutes of 2 November 2007 Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm - _Toc55609368 Minutes of 7 November 2008 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm - _Toc87682556 Geographic Regions Review Working Group Proposed Charter [PDF, 44K] The Process From Here: At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding the proposed charter document. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently make a decision on whether to approve the proposed charter. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 18 February 2009 through 24 March 2009, and invites community comments on this topic. This particular forum period is longer than 30 days because public forum comment periods are now typically suspended during the dates of ICANN Board meetings and the ICANN Mexico City meeting is scheduled from 2 March to 6 March 2009. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#regions-charter To submit comments: geo-charter(a)icann.org To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/geo-charter/ Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Fast Track Proposed Solutions
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb09-en.htm Public Comment: Fast Track Proposed Solutions 18 February 2009 A public comment period opens today on a number of proposed implementation features in the "Fast Track" process, as well as an updated version of the Fast Track's Implementation Plan . The Fast Track is a mechanism to introduce a limited number of non-contentious internationalized country-code top level domain names (IDN ccTLDs) to the Internet. In the initial draft of the Fast Track Implementation Plan, a number of open issues were identified that require further input from the community and need to be resolved to complete the implementation. There are separate papers of proposed implementation details (listed below). The papers are based on comments and input received from the community, notably from meetings held at ICANN's international public meeting in Cairo in November 2008. Along with the papers are: an updated Draft Implementation Plan; a document providing a consolidated overview of the comments received and document containing staff considerations regarding the comments received on the initial Draft Implementation Plan. This new version of the plan is intended to elicit further community feedback both during and after the ICANN meeting in Mexico City next month (1-6 March 2009). The public comment period that opened today covers both the Draft Implementation Plan and the papers. Comments received will be used to revise the plan in preparation of a Final Implementation Plan. The comment period ends on 6 April 2009. Please note that the papers listed below are proposed discussion drafts only. Potential IDN ccTLD requestors should not rely on any of the proposed included details as it remains subject to further consultation and revision. Please also note that it is expected there will be several updates to this announcement as papers are released as they are finalized and translated. The papers describe: 1. Documentation of Responsibility between ICANN and prospective IDN ccTLD Managers [PDF, 156K] 2. Development and use of IDN tables and character variants for second and top level strings [PDF, 120K] Related links: Public comment period: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/ Revised Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan: (coming) Staff considerations on received comments: (coming) Working Group Final Report (with public comments): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/staff-considerations-idnc-wg-… [PDF, 269K] Fast Track webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Your Input Required for Operating Plan and Budget Framework - Fiscal Year 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17feb09-en.htm Your Input Required for Operating Plan and Budget Framework - Fiscal Year 2010 Proposed Framework for ICANN's FY10 Operating Plan and Budget 17 February 2009 The release of ICANN's Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) Operating Plan and Budget [PDF, 868K] kicks off the operational planning process for ICANN, providing the community the first look at the planned work and financial resources required for FY10. The framework will be discussed with members of the ICANN community at the Mexico City meeting in March, through online public comment areas, and through conference calls with ICANN constituencies. A more detailed draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget will be posted by 17 May 2009. After more public comment and feedback, the budget is expected to be adopted by the ICANN Board at its Sydney meeting in June 2009. ICANN has now completed its 10th year, and this framework reflects a growing organization that is attaining operational maturity in many areas. Many of the organizational support elements envisioned for ICANN are at levels adequate to provide sufficient support for the current scale of community work. This means that ICANN's spending growth is anticipated to slow substantially in the FY10 budget as compared with previous years (4.9% compared with 30.1% in FY09). The world economic environment has dictated that costs that can be deferred will be. ICANN will likely under run its FY09 budget through some explicit cost controls as well as through the shifting of some program expenses into FY10. As always, the community is encouraged to comment on how well this plan addresses priorities identified in the Strategic Plan. This year, specifically in light of the world economic climate, the community is encouraged to comment regarding the plan elements that might be streamlined, reduced, or deferred: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200904.html#op-budget… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Single and Two-Character .BIZ Domains
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13feb09-en.htm Public Comment: Single and Two-Character .BIZ Domains 13 February 2009 ICANN is today opening a public comment forum on a proposed amendment from NeuStar to Appendix 6 and 7 of the .BIZ Registry Agreement. On 31 October 2008, ICANN posted for public information a request submitted by NeuStar through the Registry Services Evaluation Process for a phased allocation process for single and two-character names in .BIZ. The NeuStar proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/neustar-request-2008010-31oct08.pdf [PDF, 100K]. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination to determine whether the proposal might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposal did not raise such issues in .BIZ. [Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework…) which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.] The proposal requires an amendment the .BIZ List of Reserved TLD Strings (Appendix 6) and a description of the phased allocation program is proposed to be inserted at the 7.2 of Appendix 7. A copy of the proposed amendment is available here [PDF, 24K]. Comments on the proposed amendment submitted to biz-alloc-amendment at icann.org will be considered until 15 Mar 2009 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-alloc-amendment/. All documentation related to the NeuStar proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008010 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: [gnso-rap-dt] Updated programme for GNSO Council and updated answers
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

Dear Council, Fyi below and attached, including the Draft Programme for the Registration Abuse Policy workshop to be held on Tuesday evening in Mexico City, the SSAC request to the RAP Drafting Team, and answers to Chuck's questions regarding the draft Charter for the RAP Working Group which we will vote on tomorrow. It was agreed to send this to Council, after the Drafting Team call this morning, although a couple members of the Drafting Team have not reviewed the final versions of the programme or answers to Chuck's questions. Please let me know any questions. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 8:13 AM To: gnso-rap-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] Updated programme for GNSO Council and updated answers Dear All, As discussed please find attached the updated programme to be shared with the GNSO Council (no names of speakers included, only affiliation) and below the updated answers to the questions raised by Chuck. Mike agreed to send these to the Council ASAP, together with the SSAC request (also attached) in time for the Council meeting tomorrow with the caveat that not all members of the drafting team have had an opportunity to review this latest version. With best regards, Marika 1. Is the additional research supposed to be done before the WG finishes its work? This will be for the WG to determine as it depends of the scope and size of the research that needs to be undertaken. 2. Is the WG supposed to finish its work in 90 days after Mexico City or simply report on progress then? If the WG is not finished by then, it is the expectation that the WG would present its progress together with the expected end date of its work. 3. Is the WG supposed to attempt to make a recommendation to the Council on whether to initiate a PDP or not? More specifically, the WG is expected to make a recommendation about which registration abuse policy issues, if any, are appropriate for a PDP.

1 0

Preliminary Report of ICANN Board meeting - 3 Feb 2009
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

Hello All, See below for the preliminary report of the ICANN Board meeting held on 3 Feb 2009. Note issues of relevance for the GNSO include: - resolution for SSAC/RSSAC stability study resulting from implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new IDN-ccTLDs, etc. (see item 3) - GNSO term limits - take effect after 2009 AGM (see item 4) - renewal of .aero agreement (see item 10) Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-03feb09.htm Preliminary Report Resolutions of Special Board Meeting 3 February 2009 (Posted 10 February 2009) [Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board] This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 3 February 2009. This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but a preliminary attempt to capture the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Board's Minutes. 1. Consent Agenda -- Approval of Minutes / Acceptance of Board Committee Reports ======================================================================== ======== Minutes - Approved Resolution (approved by voice vote - unanimous) It is, Resolved (2009-02-03-01) that the Minutes of the Special Board Meeting of 11 December 2008 are hereby approved. Acceptance of Board Committee Reports - Approved Resolution (voice vote - unanimous) - It is, Resolved (2009-02-03-02) that the following Reports from Board Committees are hereby accepted and received by the Board: A -- Board Governance Committee - 3 December 2008 Minutes, and 7 January 2009 Preliminary Report B -- Finance Committee - 18 November 2008 Minutes and 13 January 2009 Preliminary Report C -- IANA Committee - 10 December 2008 Preliminary Report D -- Public Participation Committee -16 December 2008 Minutes and 14 January 2009 Preliminary Report E -- Structural Improvements Committee -13 January 2009 Preliminary Report 2. 2009-2012 Strategic Plan Approval ===================================== Approved Resolution - (Approved by a voice vote 14 affirmative, 1 negative and no abstentions) Whereas, ICANN's July 2009 through June 2012 Strategic Plan builds on the work of the previous plan, and is based on input from the ICANN Board of Directors, through consultation with the community through workshops held in multiple ICANN meetings, and through public forums on the ICANN website. Whereas, the 2009-2012 Strategic Plan describes nine strategic initiatives, and principal objectives and specific outcomes for these initiatives. Whereas, the strategic objectives in the plan will form the framework around which the July 2009 through June 2010 Operational Plan and the associated budget are constructed. Whereas, members of the community have been very generous with their time and the Board appreciates the work that they have done. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-03) the Board approves the July 2009- June 2012 Strategic Plan, and directs the President and staff to move forward with the community-based operational planning process based on the strategic objectives as set forth in the plan. 3. SSAC/RSSAC Stability Study - Approved Resolution - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== ======= Whereas, over a short period of time, significant changes to root zone operations are anticipated, including the still-recent addition of IPv6 records to the root, and planned implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new cc IDNs, and new generic top level domains. Whereas, the aggregate impact of these anticipated changes should be formally analyzed for impacts on scalability and stability. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-04) the Chairman of ICANN's Board communicate with the Chairpersons of SSAC and RSSAC and ICANN President to request an overall root zone stability study a letter setting out some of the following points that should be addressed: Various important technology and policy initiatives related to the root zone and root zone operations are now coming to fruition. These include the still-recent addition of IPv6 access to root services, and the planned addition of Internationalized Domain Names at the root level, signing the root zone with DNSSEC technology, new country code IDN top level domains, and new generic top level domains. ICANN has conducted a number of efforts to understand the potential security and stability impacts of these changes individually. The RSSAC and SSAC jointly issued an analysis of adding IPv6 records to the root in 2007 (see http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac018.pdf and IANA's report at http://www.iana.org/reports/2008/root-aaaa-announcement.html) The addition of IDNs to the root has been the subject of significant advance planning, and an extended real-world testbed (see for example SSAC's report at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac020.pdf, and IANA's report at http://www.iana.org/reports/2007/testetal-report-01aug2007.html) DNSSEC has benefited from extensive root zone test bed experience and been extensively analyzed though not specifically for the root (see for example http://www.net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~anja/feldmann/papers/dnssec05. pdf, and the RSTEP report on PIR's DNSSEC implementation at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rstep-report-pir-dnssec-04jun08.pdf .). Finally, an ICANN staff paper on root zone impact of new TLDs was published for public comment in February, 2008 (see http://icann.org/topics/dns-stability-draft-paper-06feb08.pdf ); this document was based in part on conversations with SSAC and RSSAC members, though not adopted/approved by either committee. Given that these changes - IPv6 records in the root zone, DNSSEC, IDNs, and new TLDs (country code and generic) - have not been analyzed for their combined impact on root zone operations, the ICANN Board requests the SSAC and RSSAC jointly conduct a study analyzing the impact to security and stability within the DNS root server system of these proposed implementations. The analysis should address the implications of initial implementation of these changes occurring during a compressed time period. ICANN must ensure that potential changes in the technical management of the root zone and scope of activity at the TLD level within the DNS will not pose significant risks to the security and stability of the system. The study should address the capacity and scaling of the root server system to address a stressing range of technical challenges and operational demands that might emerge as part of the implementation of proposed changes. The ICANN Board requests the Committee develop a terms of reference for the Study and appoint a steering committee to guide the effort by 28 February 2009. The Board further requests the study involve direct participation by senior ICANN technical staff involved with its planned implementations of these activities and to provide necessary support to implement aspects of this study under terms and with ultimate approval of the advisory committees. Additionally, the Board seeks to ensure the process for establishing the study terms, design and implementation will address the technical and operational concerns regarding expanding the DNS root zone that have been expressed on this topic. The Board seeks study findings and recommendations by 15 May 2009. 4. GNSO Council Term Limits - Approved Resolution (approved by voice vote - unanimously) ======================================================================== ==== Whereas, the GNSO Council recommended term limits for GNSO Council members in November 2006; and Whereas, the ICANN Board approved the recommendation of term limits for GNSO Council members as part of its approval of the GNSO Improvements Report on 26 June 2006; and Whereas an amended bylaws provision establishing term limits has been posted and public comments solicited and duly considered by the Board; and Whereas the Board finds that term limits will enhance inclusiveness and enable more people to become involved in Council activities. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-05) that the Board approves a modification to the ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3, which shall take effect following the end of the ICANN Board's 2009 Annual General Meeting, to prohibit a GNSO Council member from serving more than two consecutive terms. Moreover, a former Council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. It is further resolved that an exception is permitted in a "special circumstance" (such as with respect to geographic diversity requirements, where no alternative representative is available to serve), in which case a Council member may serve one additional term. A "special circumstance" is approved by majority vote of the GNSO Council. 5. Redelegation of .SO (Somalia) Domain - (approved by voice vote, 11 affirmative votes, no negative votes and three abstentions) ======================================================================== ========= Whereas, the .SO top-level domain is the designated country-code for Somalia. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .SO to the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities. Whereas, the ICANN Board the board is satisfied with the IANA assessment and believes that the applicant meets the relevant policy criteria. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-06) , that the proposed redelegation of the .SO domain to the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia is approved. 6. Bylaws Provisions Changes - Relating to Request from Nominating Committee - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== ======== Whereas, the Nominating Committee has expressed concern that, pursuant to the Bylaws mandated diversity requirements that no more than five Board members be citizens of any one geographic region, the NomCom is required to count all countries of citizenship for each candidate. Whereas, the NomCom has noted that the requirement to count all countries of citizenship has caused some selection difficulties each year over the past several years. Whereas, the NomCom has also expressed concern that the calculation is presently limited to citizenship given that many people have lived for long periods of time in, and represent the interests of, countries in which they may not be citizens. Whereas, making a diversity calculation pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws as it relates to Board member selection for seats 1 through 14 should be consistent. Whereas, ICANN has received public comment on the proposed revision. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-07) , that the following proposed revisions to Article VI, Sections 2.2 and 2.3, are approved: ICANN Bylaws, Article VI, section 2.2: In carrying out its responsibilities to fill Seats 1 through 8, the Nominating Committee shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members who in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At no time when it makes its selection shall the Nominating Committee select a Director to fill any vacancy or expired term whose selection would cause the total number of Directors (not including the President) from countries in any one Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of this Article) to exceed five; and the Nominating Committee shall ensure when it makes its selections that the Board includes at least one Director who is from a country in each ICANN Geographic Region ("Diversity Calculation"). For purposes of this sub-section 2 of Article VI, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, if any candidate for director maintains citizenship of more than one country, or has been domiciled for more than five years in a country of which the candidate does not maintain citizenship ("Domicile"), that candidate may be deemed to be from either country and must select in his/her Statement of Interest the country of citizenship or Domicile that he/she wants the Nominating Committee to use for Diversity Calculation purposes. For purposes of this sub- section 2 of Article VI, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, a person can only have one "Domicile," which shall be determined by where the candidate has a permanent residence and place of habitation. ICANN Bylaws, Article VI, section 2.3: In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens from the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region. For purposes of this sub-section 3 of Article VI, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, if any candidate for director maintains citizenship of more than one country, or has been domiciled for more than five years in a country of which the candidate does not maintain citizenship ("Domicile"), that candidate may be deemed to be from either country and must select in his/her Statement of Interest the country of citizenship or Domicile that he/she wants the Supporting Organization to use for selection purposes. For purposes of this sub-section 3 of Article VI, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, a person can only have one "Domicile," which shall be determined by where the candidate has a permanent residence and place of habitation. 7. Bylaw Revisions Regarding Board Committees - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== =========== Whereas, on 7 November 2008 the ICANN Board resolved to dissolve the Reconsideration Committee and the Conflicts of Interest Committee, and move the responsibilities of those committees to the Board Governance Committee. Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws specifically reference that a "Reconsideration Committee" shall handle Reconsideration Requests. Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws state that a committee is to be designated by the Board to handle matters relating to conflicts of interest, including oversight of a Conflicts of Interest Policy and annual Conflicts of Interest Statements by Board members. Whereas, ICANN held a 30-day public comment period on the proposed Bylaws revisions. Resolved (2009-02-03-08) , that the Bylaws be revised to reflect that the Board Governance Committee is the committee that is now responsible for handling matters previously handled by the Reconsideration Committee and the Conflicts of Interest Committee. 8. Board Governance Committee Recommendation re Appointment of Liaisons to Memberships of Board Committees - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== ============== Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has confirmed that Board Liaisons should be able to participate as non-voting members on certain Board committees. Whereas, the IANA Committee has invited Thomas Narten and Suzanne Woolf to join the IANA Committee. Whereas, the Public Participation Committee has invited Thomas Narten to join the Public Participation Committee. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has considered the invitations set for the above and recommends that the Board approve them. Resolve (2009-02-03-09) , , the Board Governance Committee is reviewing the ongoing roles of Liaisons within Board Committees, Resolved (2009-02-03-10) , , Thomas Narten is appointed as a non-voting member of the Public Participation Committee. Resolved (2009-02-03-11) , Thomas Narten and Suzanne Woolf are appointed as non-voting members of the IANA Committee. 9. Redelegation of the .BY (Belarus) Domain - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== =========== Whereas, the .BY top-level domain is the designated country-code for Belarus. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .BY to Open Contact Ltd. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-12) , that the proposed redelegation of the .BY domain to Open Contact Ltd is approved. 10. Renewal of .AERO Sponsorship Agreement - (approved by voice vote - unanimous) ======================================================================== ========= Whereas, ICANN staff conducted good-faith negotiations with SITA NV, sponsor for the .AERO sponsored top-level domain, for the renewal of their sponsorship agreement. Whereas, on 19 December 2008, ICANN announced that negotiations with SITA NV had been completed and posted the proposed .AERO sponsorship agreement and appendices for public comment (see, http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-19dec08-en.htm) Whereas, the proposed renewal agreement is consistent with the other proof-of-concept sTLD agreements (.COOP and .MUSEUM) and those approved in the 2003-04 sTLD round, and that approval of the proposed renewal agreement would be beneficial for the .AERO community, ICANN and the Internet community. It is hereby resolved (2009-02-03-13), renewal of the .AERO sponsorship agreement is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. 11. Board Only Session - Any actions taken during this section remain confidential.

3 2

Draft GNSO Council minutes 8 January 2008
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 8 January 2009. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated travel funds table
by Olga Cavalli Feb. 16, 2009

Feb. 16, 2009

Hi, I am including in this email an updated travel funds table that modifies the one sent by Tim, as the BC is using funds for only one traveller for the Mexico meeting. It is also attached as a word document in case that it does not show ok in your emails. Regards Olga *Cairo* *Mexico City* *Total used per* *Total Available* *Remaining for* *Constituencies* *Meeting* *Meeting* *Constituency* *Per Year* *Sydney* NCUC 2 2 4 5 1 ISPC 1 3 4 5 1 RyC 1 0 1 5 4 BC 3 1 4 5 1 RrC 1 2 3 5 2 IPC 0.5 1 1.5 5 3.5 *Total* *8.5* *10* *17.5* *30* *12.5*

1 0

Report on the USER/GNSO working group
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 16, 2009

Feb. 16, 2009

I was asked to report weekly on the joint working group effort. We met last Wednesday via teleconference and discussed a draft statement to the Board. We had a productive discussion, followed by a number of e-mail exchanges. A new version of the statement has been distributed to the group. Unless there is a strong feeling of discomfort, the remaining work will be done by e-mail. If there is a need, we will have an additional teleconference this Wednesday as well. I am reasonably optimistic that we will have a statement to the Board that all participants can support. Alan

1 0