September 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Visual procedures Map and Abstention Notofication form for GNSO Council meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Dear Councillors, Reminder, with the votes that are before Council please acquaint yourselves with the two documents below: · Visual Procedures Map<http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm> covering abstentions, absences, and vacancies http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm · Abstention Notification Form<http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm> to be completed by an officer of the abstaining Councilor's appointing organization (Stakeholder Group or Constituency, as appropriate) http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm May I draw your attention to the following rules from the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf 3.8 Absences and Vacancies 3.8.1 Incidental Absence As covered in Section 4.5.1, GNSO Council members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled Council meetings and be present at the time such sessions are called to order. a. Planned Absence: It is understood that, from time to time, it may be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a scheduled meeting due to a conflicting personal or professional obligation or other planned event that cannot be reasonably altered. i. When a Councilor anticipates being absent or late for a Council meeting, the Councilor is expected to notify (e.g. telephone, e-mail) the GNSO Secretariat as soon as practicable before the meeting begins. ii. A Councilor is expected to vote on such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the alternative means provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable. If circumstances will not permit voting using the alternative means available, the Councilor may declare an intention to abstain on those motions that are scheduled to be voted upon during the GNSO Council meeting at which the Councilor expects to be absent. In such an instance, the procedures in Section 4.5-Abstentions will apply. Version 2.0 Page 11 b. Unplanned Absence: Occasionally, it will be necessary for a GNSO Council member to miss a regularly scheduled meeting due to sudden illness, accident, injury, or other unforeseen event that cannot reasonably be anticipated. i. Even though this category of absence occurs without advanced notice, a Councilor is expected to communicate the circumstances of the absence (e.g. telephone, e-mail) to the GNSO Secretariat as soon as practicable after the incident occurs. ii. A Councilor is expected to vote on such motions as may come before the GNSO Council using the alternative means provided in Section 4.4-Absentee Voting, if applicable. If circumstances will not permit voting using the alternative means available, the record shall be noted "Absent" and a vote will not be cast. 3.8.2 Leave of Absence a. Planned: If a GNSO Council member anticipates being unable to attend two or more regularly-scheduled GNSO Council meetings consecutively, the Councilor shall notify the appointing organization or, for a House NCA, the Nominating Committee and the GNSO Secretariat that a "Leave of Absence" is being requested at which time the remedy described in 3.8.4 is available. b. Unplanned: When a GNSO Council member fails to attend two regularly-scheduled GNSO Council meetings consecutively without prior notification to the GNSO Secretariat, the GNSO Secretariat will advise the appointing organization or, for a House NCA, the Nominating Committee that the Councilor has satisfied the conditions for an effective "Leave of Absence" at which time the remedy described in 3.8.4 is available. 3.8.3 Vacancies a. In the event of a GNSO Council member resignation or other permanent vacancy, the Bylaws call for replacement according Article X, Section 3(3). b. During any transition period following the occurrence of the permanent vacancy, but before a new election or appointment and subsequent seating of the replacement Councilor, the remedy in 3.8.4 is available. 3.8.4 Remedy: Temporary Alternate a. For a Councilor who is not appointed by the Nominating Committee, the appointing organization may, at its discretion, name a Temporary Alternate to serve in the absent or vacant Councilor's seat. b. For a voting NCA, the Council non-voting NCA is immediately activated to serve as a Temporary Alternate subject to provisions in Paragraph 4.5.3-c. The communication required pursuant to Paragraph 4.5.4-b, if it cannot be submitted by the voting NCA, will be completed and forwarded by the non-Voting NCA. Version 2.0 Page 12 c. A named Temporary Alternate pursuant to this section is subject to the applicable provisions in Paragraphs 4.5.3-c and 4.5.4-b except that the communication to the GNSO Secretariat should be amended as follows: i. the reason or condition leading to the remedy is either "Leave of Absence" or "Vacancy," as applicable; and ii. the measures/motions/votes upon which the Temporary Alternate may engage are not constrained, as in other remedies (see Section 4.5), and may be noted as "All Subjects Permitted." d. A named Temporary Alternate pursuant to this section will be expected to participate in all matters that would otherwise have occupied the attention of the absent Councilor. 3.8.5 Any occurrence of absence or vacancy that is not declared in advance, as provided in this section, will be recorded as "Absent" and such action will not reduce the denominator in any vote tabulation for the affected House. Version Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

No Audio Cast for Council call on 8 September
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Dear Council Members, The GNSO Council meeting will not be audio cast tomorrow due to technical difficulties as described below: "IT has conducted further testing and we have determined that the timeout fix was not corrected. We will be unable to support any calls until the bug has been corrected. I would prefer to cancel the audio cast for the Sept 8th meeting at this point. I apologize for this inconvenience and will make sure that the bug is completely fixed before offering this service for the use with the GNSO." We are indeed very disappointed and apologize, but hope that this will be up and running soon again. We will have the Council MP3 published on the website on page as soon as possible after the meeting. Thank you for your patience. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG VI report
by Stéphane Van Gelder Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Hello all. Although we have now adopted a new process which does not require Council liaisons to send in a report on the WG or DT they are assigned to because that is now being covered by the action items list, I forgot this and started to work on the VI WG report anyway... I will therefore send it, as its done, but will no longer send separate reports after this one. Here it is then. Thanks. Stéphane Vertical Integration Policy Development Process (VI PDP) - Chairs Roberto Gaetano and Mikey O'Connor - Council Liaison - Stéphane van Gelder – Sept 7, 2010 The working group has produced an interim report. That report is published (please see VI PDP WG wiki at https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp) There has been a lull in the WG activity lately, partly due to the summer vacation period, and partly because the upcoming Board retreat at the end of September may mean new directions for the WG to work in, or may even make the WG's existence moot. The WG is currently meeting once a week by teleconference. The current topic of discussion is an attempt to identify the harms that might result from applying the various scenarios put forward in the preliminary report. To this end, the WG is conducting broad research and constructing a list of possible harms (from both VI and Vertical Separation).

1 1

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 26 August 2010.
by Glen de Saint Géry Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 26 August 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published as approved on September 16, 2010 on the website on page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug Thank you. kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

charter for JAS WG
by Rafik Dammak Sept. 6, 2010

Sept. 6, 2010

Hello Chuck, I am sending this email acting as GNSO liaison for JAS WG (SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support ) and requesting to fix an issue with the WG charter. It seems that the GNSO council voted for the motion "20100520-3" which includes links redirected to version of WG charter containing only 4 objectives (in GNSO page http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-jas-wg-charter-12may10-en.htm) when the correct version of the charter contains 5 objectives (here in the WG wiki https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_s… ) The missing objective is the number 5 which you can find in the wiki page: "To identify conditions and mechanisms required to minimize the risk of inappropriate access to support" Best Regards Rafik

2 1

MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS
by Olga Cavalli Sept. 3, 2010

Sept. 3, 2010

Dear Council Members, I am sending this motion for your consideration. A second is welcome. Best regards Olga * * * * *MOTION TO ENDORSE VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON THE AOC REVIEW TEAMS:* WHEREAS, in furtherance of ICANN’s responsibilities under the Affirmation of Commitments, applicants are being sought to volunteer to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm>and Whois Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm>; WHEREAS, these AOC review teams will include members endorsed by the GNSO Council; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council desires to endorse applicants to serve on the review teams for Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-2-en.htm> (SSR) and Whois Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-4-en.htm> ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that pursuant to the approved Endorsement Process<http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/gnso-endorsement-of-aoc-nominees-process-…>, the following applicants are hereby endorsed by the GNSO Council to serve on the AOC review teams listed below: *SSR Review Team:* Jeff Brueggeman David Cake Rick Wilhelm Ken Silva George Asare Sakyi *WHOIS Policy:** * Susan Kawaguchi Kim G. Von Arx James Bladel Kathy Kleiman RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Secretariat is requested to forward, as appropriate, the names of the endorsed applicants to serve on the “WHOIS Policy” and “Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS” review teams to the RT Selectors.

4 5

Statement of Interest Update
by Gomes, Chuck Sept. 3, 2010

Sept. 3, 2010

<<Interest Statement from Chuck Gomes 3 Sep 10.doc>> I made what I believe are minor edits to my Statement of Interest that are highlighted in the attached file. Glen - Please accept the changes in this document and post a clean version. Thanks. Chuck

1 0

ICANN Board resolutions passed today
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 2, 2010

Sept. 2, 2010

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm Adopted Board Resolutions 5 August 2010 1.Executive Session – No resolutions 2.Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Minutes of 23 June 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting b. Approval of Minutes of 25 June 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting c. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs: i. Sri Lanka ii. Thailand d. Approval of RSEP Request for Allocation of 1 and 2-Character Domains in .TRAVEL e. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee i. Bylaw changes ii. Membership appointments to initial term lengths f. From the Structural Improvements Committee – Receipt of Final Report from RSSAC Review Working Group g. Receipt and Posting for Public Comment of the Application to be a New UDRP Provider – No resolution h. Approval of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Plan 3. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs a. Occupied Palestine Territory b. Tunisia c. Jordan 4. CEO's Report – No Resolution 5. Chair Remuneration 6. International Dimension of ICANN 7. Approval of RSEP Request for Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS 8. Update on New gTLD program – No resolution 9. ICM Registry Application for .XXX sTLD 10. Data & Consumer Protection 11. From the ASO – Ratification of Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers 12. UDRP Status Briefing – No resolution 13. Any Other Business – No resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note: Posting of the approved resolutions within two business days after the Board meeting is required under the ICANN Bylaws. The preliminary report and minutes will be posted on the website at a later time, providing additional information. 1.Executive Session – No resolutions 2.Consent Agenda: ================= RESOLVED, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby approved: a. Approval of Minutes of 23 June 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.08.05.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 23 June 2010 Board Meeting. b. Approval of Minutes of 25 June 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting RESOLVED (2010.08.05.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 25 June 2010 Board Meeting. c. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs: i. Sri Lanka Whereas, Sri Lanka is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, .ලංකා ("Lanka"), encoded as "xn--fzc2c9e2c"; and .இலங்கை ("Ilangai"), encoded as "xn--xkc2al3hye2a"; are both strings that have been deemed to appropriately represent Sri Lanka through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received requests for delegation of .ලංකා and .இலங்கை to LK Domain Registry. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the requests, and has determined that the proposed delegations would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.03), the proposed delegation of .ලංකා to LK Domain Registry is approved. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.04), the proposed delegation of .இலங்கை to LK Domain Registry is approved. ii. Thailand Whereas, the Thailand is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, .ไทย ("Thai"), encoded as "xn--o3cw4h", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Thailand through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .ไทย to the Thai Network Information Center Foundation. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.05), the proposed delegation of the .ไทย domain to the Thai Network Information Center Foundation is approved. d. Approval of RSEP Request for Allocation of 1 and 2-Character Domains in .TRAVEL Whereas, Tralliance submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .TRAVEL Registry Agreements to allocate one and two-character domain names via a phased allocation process. Whereas, the proposed release of single and two-character domain names in .TRAVEL would be consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group and other approvals to permit the release of one and two-character domain names. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the .TRAVEL Registry Agreement as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/) RESOLVED (2010.08.05.06), the .TRAVEL amendment is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. e. From the Security & Stability Advisory Committee i. Bylaw changes Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en…, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended SSAC membership appointments be for a term of three years renewable by the Board at the recommendation of the SSAC Chair indefinitely, and that the terms be staggered to allow for the terms of one-third of the SSAC members to expire at the end of every year. Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the SSAC final report and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6. Whereas, Article XI, Section 2(2)(b) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XIof the Bylaws states that the SSAC chair and members shall be appointed by the Board, and does not state any term for such appointments. Whereas, staff supporting the SIC have identified that a Bylaws amendment is required in order to implement the recommended change to the SSAC membership appointments. Whereas, in Resolution 2010.06.25.04 the Board directed the CEO to have staff draft proposed Bylaws amendments addressing the recommendations arising out of the SSAC review Working Group and to post the proposed Bylaws amendments for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. Whereas, the proposed amendments were posted for public comment for a period of 30 days beginning 02 July 2010 and ending 01 August 2010, Whereas, staff provided the Board with a summary and analysis of the public comments received and recommended that the Board approve the Bylaws revisions as posted at http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-ix-2-02jul10-en.pdf. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.07), the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as posted for public comment in furtherance of the recommendations arising out of the SSAC review Working Group. ii. Membership appointments to initial term lengths Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en…, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recommended SSAC membership appointments be for a term of three years renewable by the Board at the recommendation of the SSAC Chair indefinitely, and that the terms be staggered to allow for the terms of one-third of the SSAC members to expire at the end of every year. Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.xx approved Bylaws revisions that create three-year terms for SSAC members, require staggering of terms, and obligate the SSAC chair to recommend the re-appointment of all current SSAC members to full or partial terms to implement the Bylaws revisions. The SSAC Chair must provide those recommendations prior to 1 January 2011. As noted in the Bylaws, prior to 1 January 2011, the SSAC shall remain comprised as stated in the Bylaws as amended 25 June 2010. Whereas, the Chair of the SSAC provided recommendations to the Board in fulfillment of his obligations under the Bylaws. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.08), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC Chair and appoints the following SSAC members to partial terms of one year commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2011: Harald Alvestrand, KC Claffy, Steve Crocker, Rodney Joffe, Mark Kosters, Russ Mundy, Ray Plzak, Christophe Reverd, Mark Seiden, Bruce Tonkin, Stefano Trumpy, Patrick Vande Walle, Paul Vixie; the Board appoints the following SSAC members to partial terms of two years commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2012: Alain Aina, Jaap Akkerhuis, Patrik Fältström, James Galvin, Douglas Maughan, Ram Mohan, Frederico Neves, John Schnizlein, Doron Shikmoni, Rick Wesson, Richard Wilhelm, Suzanne Woolf; the Board appoints the following SSAC members to full terms of three years commencing on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2013: Roy Arends, Jeffrey Bedser, Duncan Hart, Jeremy Hitchcock, Sarmad Hussain, Warren Kumari, Matt Larson, Xiaodong Lee, Danny McPherson, Shinta Sato, Vanda Scartezini, Danny McPherson, Shinta Sato, Vanda Scartezini, Dan Simon. f. From the Structural Improvements Committee – Receipt of Final Report from RSSAC Review Working Group Whereas, after public comment, the RSSAC review Working Group (WG) has delivered to the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) its final report of activity, which contain conclusions and recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of this structure; Whereas, at its 22 July 2010 meeting, the SIC recommended that the Board receive the final report, thank the members of the RSSAC review WG, and dissolve the RSSAC review WG, which has fulfilled the tasks assigned to it at the time of establishment; Whereas, the SIC also recommended that the ICANN Board direct the SIC with presenting a set of suggested implementation actions arising out of the Final Report for Board consideration and approval at the 28 October 2010 meeting of the Board. Resolved (2010.08.05.09), the Board receives the final report of the RSSAC review Working Group. Resolved (2010.08.05.10), the Board thanks the Chair and Members of the RSSAC review Working Group: Harald Alvestrand (Chair), Steve Crocker and Bruce Tonkin, for their commitment and ability to fulfil their tasks. Resolved (2010.08.05.11), the Board dissolves the RSSAC review Working Group. Resolved (2010.08.05.12), the Board directs the Structural Improvements Committee to present a set of suggested actions for approval at the October 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final report of this Working Group. g. Receipt and Posting for Public Comment of the Application to be a New UDRP Provider – No resolution h. Approval of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Plan Whereas, on 26 June 2009, the Board resolved to direct ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the ALAC Review Final Report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats) and to submit these to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval. (Resolution 2009.06.26.12). Whereas, at its 19 June 2010 meeting, the SIC acknowledged receipt from staff and the At-Large community of an implementation plan, with timeline, "ALAC/At‐Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan", dated 7 June 2010, and resolved to recommend it to the ICANN Board for consideration. Whereas, at its 25 June 2010 Meeting, the Board directed ICANN's CEO to provide the Board with a summary of the "ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan" dated 7 June 2010, for consideration at the next Board meeting, if practicable. (Resolution 2010.06.25.10). It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.08.05.12), that the Board approve the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Plan and directs ICANN's CEO to take action according to the ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan and report back on the progress at the 2010 Annual General Meeting. Main Agenda: ============ 3. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs ============================ RESOLVED (2010.08.05.13), the Board IANA Committee is directed, in coordination with ICANN's CEO, to create improvements to the processes and new guidelines for implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process. a. Occupied Palestine Territory Whereas, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, فلسطين ("Falasteen"), encoded as "xn--ygbi2ammx", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the Occupied Palestinian Territory through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of فلسطين. to the Ministry of Telecom and Information Technology of the Palestinian National Authority. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.14), the proposed delegation of the فلسطين. domain to the Ministry of Telecom and Information Technology is approved. b. Tunisia Whereas, Tunisia is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, تونس ("Tunis"), encoded as "xn--pgbs0dh", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Tunisia through the IDN Fast Track process; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of تونس. to Agence Tunisienne d'Internet; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities; RESOLVED (2010.08.05.15), the proposed delegation of the تونس. top-level domain to Agence Tunisienne d'Internet is approved. c. Jordan Whereas, Jordan is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. Whereas, الاردن ("al-Ordon"), encoded as "xn--mgbayh7gpa", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Jordan through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of الاردن. to the National Information Technology Center. Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.16), the proposed delegation of the الاردن. domain to the National Information Technology Center is approved. 4. CEO's Report – No Resolution 5. Chair Remuneration ===================== Whereas, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to consider reasonable compensation for the Chair of the Board of ICANN. Whereas, in order for the Board to approve any level of compensation for the Board Chair the Bylaws must be revised. Whereas, at the Board's direction, the proposed Bylaws revisions providing for compensation for the Board Chair were posted for public comment for 30 days. Whereas, in authorizing the consideration of Board Chair compensation and the posting of proposed Bylaws revisions, the Board followed all requirements to ensure that the Compensation Committee and the Board followed the process set forth in the United States Treasury Regulation intended to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to the Board Chair is reasonable (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#7) Whereas, the Board has confirmed that it has continued to follow all steps necessary to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to the Board Chair is reasonable for federal income tax purposes. Whereas, the Board has considered the public comments, as well as all other information received, including the independent analysis from Towers Watson on reasonable compensation for the Board Chair. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.17), the proposed revisions to ICANN's Bylaws, Article VI, section 22, are hereby adopted and staff is directed to update the ICANN Bylaws accordingly. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.18), the Board approves compensation for the Board Chair in the amount of $75,000 per year, to paid out on a pro-rata basis beginning as of 12:01 a.m. on 6 August 2010 as calculated at ICANN's headquarters in Marina del Rey, California. 6. International Dimension of ICANN ================================== RESOLVED (2010.08.05.19), the Board confirms the establishment of a Board Global Relationships Committee and adopts the proposed Global Relationships Committee Charter. The Board Governance Committee shall provide recommendations for the composition of the Global Relationships Committee. 7. Approval of RSEP Request for Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS ================================================================= Whereas, EmployMedia submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend Appendix S of the .JOBS Registry Agreement permit the registration and allocation of .jobs domain names through a phased allocation process. Whereas, the proposal was submitted to ICANN following the policy development process defined in its delegated authority in Appendix S as a sponsored TLD, with the endorsement of the sponsoring organization for .JOBS, the Society for Human Resource Management. The proposal is also consistent with other approvals to permit the registration and allocation of certain types of domain names via phased allocation mechanisms. Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the Appendix S of the .JOBS Registry Agreement as a new registry service pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/) RESOLVED (2010.08.05.20), the .JOBS amendment is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments. 8.Update on New gTLD program – No resolution 9.ICM Registry Application for .XXX sTLD ========================================= Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has completed the expedited due diligence regarding ICM Registry, as directed by the Board, and has concluded that ICM has represented that its Application for the .XXX sTLD is still current and that there have been no negative changes in ICM's qualifications. Whereas, ICANN Staff is in consultation with ICM on a new proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD and expects to receive a finalized proposal from ICM. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.21), upon receipt of ICM's application documentation, ICANN Staff is authorized to post ICM's supporting documents and proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.22), upon completion of public comment period, ICANN Staff shall provide the Board with a summary of the public comments and shall make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD is consistent with GAC advice. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.23), once the Board has received the above public comment summary and recommendation from the ICANN Staff regarding the proposed registry agreement for the .XXX sTLD, the Board shall at its next possible meeting, consider this recommendation, and determine, consistent with the ICANN Bylaws, whether a GAC consultation shall be required. 10. Data & Consumer Protection =============================== Whereas, the use of registry data has been a topic of consideration, particularly as the subject relates to the registrant protection issues. Whereas, given the import of the topic, further discussion is warranted. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.24), the Board will establish a board working group to identify issues relating to the use of registry data and where registrant protection might be further explored or proposed policies might be introduced. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.25), the Board asks the Board Governance Committee to assist in following the Process for Establishment of Board Working Groups for the formation of a Registry Data Working Group, including the selection of members and drafting of proposed terms of reference. 11. From the ASO – Ratification of Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers ======================================================================================== RESOLVED (2010.08.05.26), the Board acknowledges the receipt of the Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, which is currently posted for public comment. RESOLVED (2010.08.05.27), after the close of the public comment period, the Board Executive Committee is directed to consider the Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers within the timeframe mandated under the ICANN/NRO Memorandum of Understanding. 12. UDRP Status Briefing – No resolution 13. Any Other Business – No resolution

2 3

Re: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
by Caroline Greer Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

I don't know that we achieve anything more by just sending the Executive Summary rather than the full report? And as regards additional commentary by the Council Wolf, I think your first two points are covered in the original motion and I am not sure that we can go so far as saying that we 'expect' consensus recommendations to be made? We would all like to see this happen of course and I am quite sure the WG will strive to achieve that but reference in the original motion to an 'attempt' to work through the issues might perhaps be better wording and a more accurate reflection of what is going on? I know that a motion such as this is not strictly necessary process-wise but perhaps it does no harm for the Council to publicly acknowledge the good work that has been done to date by the WG since such a huge effort has gone behind it. And while several Board members are very up to date on all that is going on with the VI WG in particular, the same might not be said of all. Thanks ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wed Sep 01 20:47:04 2010 Subject: AW: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting This is a valuable hint. I'd like to come back to my suggestion just to send the Executive Summary of the report together with some "comments" made in the draft motion, such as - Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group - no endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time - the Council still expects consensus recommendations in a final report Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 01:35 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Note that several Board members have been observing the working group activities, and are aware of the initial report. There is no "requirement" to formally transmit the report, as the report is a public document, and available to both the Board and the staff. The value in a motion such as that below, is an opportunity for the Council to give some context/commentary on top of the initial report as the body managing the policy development processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:14 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting Dear Council Members, In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below. Many thanks, Kind regards, Caroline. ************************************************************** Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and, Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report. RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.

3 2

Re-submission of the VI Motion for Sep 8th Council Meeting
by Caroline Greer Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

Dear Council Members, In advance of our next Council meeting on 8th September and in order to meet the submission deadline of today, I would like to re-submit the Motion to Forward the Revised Initial Report on the Vertical Integration PDP to the ICANN Board. That motion is set out below. Many thanks, Kind regards, Caroline. ************************************************************** Whereas, on 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars; Whereas the VI Working Group has produced its Revised Initial Report and has presented it to the GNSO Council on 18 August; and, Whereas, the GNSO Council recognizes that the Revised Initial Report does not include any recommendations that have achieved a consensus within the VI Working Group, and instead reflects the current state of the work of the VI Working Group; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Revised Initial Report, and desires to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in developing the Revised Initial Report on an expedited basis; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Council hereby agrees to forward the Revised Initial Report to the ICANN Board as a snapshot of the current state of the ongoing deliberations of the VI Working Group with the understanding that the VI Working Group will continue to work through these issues to attempt to produce consensus recommendations in a final report. RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is not an endorsement or approval by the GNSO Council of the contents of the Revised Initial Report at this time; RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council directs Staff to make the appropriate notifications to the ICANN Secretary and to the community.

3 2