January 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft GNSO weekend SF schedule
by Olga Cavalli Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Dear council members, Attach you can find a draft schedule for the weekend in SF. Please review it, note also that we have included House meetings and other issues of GNSO interest. Let us know, to Glen and me, as soon as possible if these times and dates are fine and if there should be other meetings and subjects that should be considered or included. Looking forward for your comments. Best regards Olga

5 4

RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

The bylaws are clear on the thresholds. If a motion contains resolves that require different thresholds to pass then take a vote and apply the threshholds as the bylaws require to each resolve, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Of course, there will be situations where not all Council members are comfortable with voting on a mixed threshold motion for various reasons. In that event, I don't see any issue with proceeding as Jeff suggests. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole? > > I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward? > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 > To: > Cc: ; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole. > > Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider. > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 > To: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion. > > While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report. > > I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting. > > However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion? > > Stéphane > > > Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > Dear Mary, > Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. > Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations > > Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter > > Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy > Sincerely, > > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] > Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 > To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > > > Thanks > > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > From: > Stéphane Van Gelder > To: > Zahid Jamil > CC: > "'GNSO Council'" > Date: > 1/27/2011 5:59 AM > Subject: > Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > Thanks Zahid. > > > Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly? > > > > Stéphane > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > > > > > Dear All, > > On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3: > > RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: > > Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > > Barrister-at-law > > Jamil & Jamil > > Barristers-at-law > > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > > Cell: +923008238230 > > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

BTW, the threshholds are in Article X, Section 3, item 9 of the bylaws. Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > From: StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Date: Mon, January 31, 2011 4:05 pm > To: tim(a)godaddy.com > Cc: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Help me out Tim. Where in the rules does it say that thresholds should apply to anything but a motion as a whole? > > I am happy to apply whatever strategy looks best here. Do you agree with Jeff's amendment as a way forward? > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 22:59, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I don't agree with that assessment. We had a group work hard on that for a long time and came with this structure and the theshholds. They are integral parts of each other. The Council cannot change that and should not change that any more so than it would take it upon itself to change a consensus policy. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:54:04 +0100 > To: > Cc: ; GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > There is nothing in our procedures that would prevent us from considering the whole motion with the lowest applicable threshold to one of its parts. However, in this case, it does look like it will be difficult to consider this motion as one whole. > > Jeff has suggested an amendment to split the motion. That would seem an useful solution to consider. > > Stéphane > > Le 31 janv. 2011 à 19:27, tim(a)godaddy.com a écrit : > I object since it may be amended, friendly or otherwise. And if we apply the appropriate to threshold to each resolve it will prevent any questions later. The entire GNSO community was involved in setting those thresholds, I think it would be inappropriate for the Council to change them or apply them inconsistently without consultation. > > Tim > From: Stéphane Van Gelder > > Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:17:34 +0100 > To: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > On this motion, you will remember that during our last meeting we discussed the voting thresholds for this motion. > > While the Council Leaders were working to prepare for the meeting, we identified the fact that the original 2 resolve clauses carried different thresholds. The 1st clause has a standard threshold while the 2nd clause carries the lower threshold that goes with issues report. > > I suggested we apply the lowest voting threshold to the whole motion. There was no opposition to that during the meeting. > > However, as the motion was deferred and now may actually include a 3rd resolve, I would like to ask the question again. Is the Council Ok with applying the lowest threshold to the full motion? > > Stéphane > > > Le 28 janv. 2011 à 10:16, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > Dear Mary, > Thanks for your queries here are responses to your questions. > Q1: First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations > > Ans: It's the group's highest ranked recommendation (among those not considered low-hanging fruit) and topics are taken verbatim from RAP DT letter > > Q2: secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > Ans: no because these are best practices and not consensus policy > Sincerely, > > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > From: Mary Wong [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] > Sent: 27 January 2011 17:15 > To: Zahid Jamil; Stéphane Van Gelder > Cc: 'GNSO Council' > Subject: Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > > > > Hi - I had a couple of questions for Zahid and the BC - unfortunately I haven't had the chance to go back to the RAP WG final report, or refer to the RAP Implementation DT's letter and rankings/recommendations but here goes. First, how does the list of topics relate to both group's consensus recommendations, and, secondly, do these need an Issues Report (which usually prefaces a vote for/against a full PDP)? > > > > Thanks > > Mary > > > > Mary W S Wong > > Professor of Law > > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > From: > Stéphane Van Gelder > To: > Zahid Jamil > CC: > "'GNSO Council'" > Date: > 1/27/2011 5:59 AM > Subject: > Re: [council] 3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment > Thanks Zahid. > > > Tim, Jeff, do you accept the amendment as friendly? > > > > Stéphane > Le 26 janv. 2011 à 19:22, Zahid Jamil a écrit : > > > > > Dear All, > > On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call -https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3: > > RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: > > Practices for identifying stolen credentialsPractices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing)Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators.Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusersPractices for suspending domain namesAccount access security managementSecurity resources of use or interest to registrars and registriesSurvey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates.Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > > Barrister-at-law > > Jamil & Jamil > > Barristers-at-law > > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > > Cell: +923008238230 > > Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 > > Fax: +92 21 35655026 > > www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. > > > > > > > > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname(a)law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

3rd Feb Council Call RAP Motion Amendment
by Zahid Jamil Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of the BC I would like to propose the following amendment to the Council motion at item 6 (RAP). In the motion (deferred from the previous Council call - https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?3_february_motions) the following may be added as Resolved 3: RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names in accordance with Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: * Practices for identifying stolen credentials * Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing) * Creating anti-abuse terms of service for inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements, and for use by TLD operators. * Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusers * Practices for suspending domain names * Account access security management * Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries * Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

6 12

Friendly Procedural Amendment to RAP motion
by Neuman, Jeff Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

All, Following up on the discussion started by Stephane, with respect to the RAP motion, it seems as though we have two, and possibly three, distinct concepts that must be voted on by the Council on Thursday. To further complicate the matters, each of these have separate thresholds. Therefore, in order to vote on these appropriately, I am making a friendly amendment to divide up the motion into sub-parts so that each motion can be considered with the appropriate threshold (e.g., to initiate a PDP has a different threshold than requesting an issues report, which also may have a different threshold than just an ordinary council action (like asking staff to draft letters). Please accept this as a friendly amendment to the process. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

RE: [council] Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011
by Tim Ruiz Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Thanks Bruce. Regarding your comments below, it sounds as if the GAC believes their advice must be "heeded," versus "taken into account," two very different concepts. Is that the situation we're in? Tim > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [council] Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011 > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Date: Sat, January 29, 2011 5:18 am > To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hello Mary, > Â > >> (1) With respect to the Topics to be discussed at the meeting, the Board's resolution in Cartagena noted that issues such as trademark protection, root zone scaling andÂ mitigating malicious conductÂ have been sufficiently addressed and "substantially reflect the negotiated position of the ICANN community". The resolutionÂ also goes on toÂ state that "ICANN will take into consideration public comment including the advice of the GAC". Is it the Board's intention to continue discussion in Brussels over these issues despite the December resolution, given that the GAC communiquÃ© seems to treat them as open issues? If so,Â how does the Board intend to draw the line between re-opening the issues and closing remaining specific concerns? > > Some good questions. Here is my PERSONAL take: > > - the guidebook that was published in Nov 2010 was based on the current balance between the various interests on particular issues. It is not perfect for anyone. > > - the public comment period on the guidebook was extended into January, and any useful improvements to the "balance" will be considered by staff and incorporated into the final guidebook. > > - the Board is meeting with the GAC to understand where the GAC does not believe that the Board has taken their advice. The Board/staff will show how the advice has been taken into account in the current version of the guidebook. If the GAC still does not believe that their advice has been heeded, the Board and GAC may discuss how the GAC advice could be taken into account in such a way that the interests of the overall ICANN community continue to be balanced. > > - any significant changes that are proposed after the Brussels consultation will likely be discussed with the community in Brussels, prior to any formal Board approval > > - the hope is that after the Brussels consultation that the number of open issues with the GAC will be substantially reduced. Thus the focus in Brussels will be to work with the ICANN community to see if it is possible to make further changes that are mutually agreeable between the GAC and the rest of the ICANN community. > > > Â > >> (2) With respect to the "subject matter experts" and non-ICANN Board or staff members who will be at the Brussels meeting (presumably at ICANN's expense),Â how and when will these people be identified? Will the communityÂ be consulted as to whoÂ they should be? > > The only ones I am aware of could be some of the economists that ICANN used to provide advice on vertical integration. Such experts may simply be consulted via audio conference if necessary. I am not aware of any new subject matter experts being identified. > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2011

Jan. 29, 2011

Hello All, See below for ICANN Board resolutions. Highlights include: - new chair/vice-chair of SSAC - Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as Vice Chair. - alignment of GNSO Board member terms with mid-year ICANN board meeting (item 2 of main agenda) - Approval of Telnic RSEP request for release of numeric-only strings except for single-character labels - Agenda item 4(a) - RESOLVED (2011.01.25.22), the Board will not commission any further economic studies on new gTLDs in advance of making its decision on the launch of the new gTLD Program as the Board has determined that no further commissioned economic studies could better inform the Board's decision. - Agenda item 4(b) RESOLVED (2010.01.25.23), the Board adopts the Proposed Rationale as the Rationale for the Board's decision on cross-ownership between registries and registrars in the New gTLD Program. - Agenda item 5 (a) new gTLDs: "Resolved (2011.01.25.24), the ICANN Board hereby determines that it intends to progress toward launching the New gTLD Program, as close as practically possible to the form as set out in the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook. Resolved (2011.01.25.25), the Board hereby determines to take actions on the Topics listed above that, at present, are not consistent with GAC advice. Resolved (2011.01.25.26), the ICANN Board hereby triggers the consultation as provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), which shall take place on Thursday, 17 March 2011, during the ICANN SV/SF meeting. Resolved (2011.01.25.27), the Bylaws-mandated consultation triggered above shall be limited to the Topics discussed at the Meeting for which the Board has not changed its position during or after the Meeting, and that remain not consistent with GAC advice." - Agenda item 5 (b) ICM: RESOLVED (2011.01.25.28), the Board directs staff to provide the GAC with the document setting forth the full Board position on items of GAC advice. The Board positions set forth correspond to the items identified for consultation at the Board's 28 October 2010 meeting. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.29), the ICANN Board hereby establishes that the consultation on ICM as triggered in Cartagena and as provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), shall take place no later than Thursday, 17 March 2011. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jan11-en.htm Adopted Board Resolutions 25 January 2011 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors*Note: Where available, draft Rationale of the Board’s actions is presented under the associated Resolution. The draft Rationale is not final until approved with the minutes of the Board meeting. 1.Consent Agenda RESOLVED, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby approved: a. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting RESOLVED (2011.01.25.01) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 8 December 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting. b. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting RESOLVED (2011.01.25.02) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 10 December 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting. c. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Organizational Board Meeting RESOLVED (2011.01.25.03) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 10 December 2010 ICANN Organizational Board Meeting. d. Approval of Revised Charter of the Finance Committee Whereas, the Board Finance Committee (BFC) is currently operating under a Charter approved in 2000, available at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/finance/. Whereas, as part of the BFC's obligation to review its operations and make appropriate recommendations for updates or enhancements, on 5 December 2010 the BFC approved a Revised Charter that better reflects the BFC's current operations. The Revised Charter also incorporates, unchanged, the standard language for Board Committee Charters as previously approved by the Board Governance Committee. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#10. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.04), the Revised Charter of the Board Finance Committee is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.04 Approving the revised Board Finance Committee (BFC) charter at this time makes sense as the revised version better reflects the current operations of the BFC than the prior version. It also now conforms to the recent revisions to all other charters, as approved by the Board Governance Committee. Further, the revised charter reflects the BFC's activities as they relate to the size and scope of ICANN in 2011 and that the BFC is operating in accordance with the best practices. In developing the revised Charter both best practices as well as the actual operations of ICANN's BFC were reviewed and considered significant to approve the revised charter. The approval of the Revised BFC Charter should have a positive public effect in that it increases the accountability and transparency of the organization and aligns with the BFC's current activities and best practices. There is no financial impact on ICANN or the community by revising the BFC charter. Confirmation of the BFC mandate through revision to its charter does not present any impact on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. e. From SSAC – Appointment of SSAC Chair Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws states that the Board shall appoint the Chair and the members of the SSAC. Whereas, on 10 December 2010 Steve Crocker announced his intention to resign as Chair of the SSAC upon the selection by the SSAC of a new Chair and appointment by the Board. Whereas, on 22 December 2010 Ray Plzak resigned as Vice Chair of the SSAC. Whereas, the SSAC initiated an election for Chair and Vice Chair from the members of the Committee beginning 10 December 2010 and ending 07 January 2011. Whereas, the Committee elected Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as Vice Chair. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.05), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and appoints Patrik Fältström as Chair of the SSAC and extends its best wishes to Patrik Fältström and to James Galvin in their important new roles. f. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member – Christophe Reverd Whereas, Christophe Reverd was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 26 June 2009. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Christophe Reverd for his service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.06), that Christophe Reverd has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Christophe Reverd well in all future endeavours. g. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member & Vice-Chair – Ray Plzak Whereas, Ray Plzak was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 17 May 2002. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Ray Plzak for his service to the community as Vice Chair and member of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.07) that Ray Plzak has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN as Vice Chair and member of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Ray Plzak well in all future endeavours. h. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Chair – Steve Crocker Whereas, Dr. Stephen Crocker was appointed as Chair of the ICAN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 14 March 2002. Whereas, Dr. Crocker has served with consummate skill and dedication as the Chair of the SSAC. Whereas, Dr. Crocker brought structure and substance to the operation of the SSAC, and led the Committee through major landmark events such as SiteFinder and Root Scaling. Whereas, Dr. Crocker expanded the membership of SSAC to include subject matter experts on a broad range of topics, simultaneously increasing the Committee's geographic diversity and depth of Staff support. Whereas, Dr. Crocker guided the SSAC through its first comprehensive external review, and ensured the implementation of all recommendations in a timely manner. Whereas, Steve Crocker transformed the Security and Stability Advisory Committee from a concept to excellence in execution, resulting in enhanced credibility to the Committee in specific and to ICANN in general. Whereas, on 10 December 2010 Dr. Crocker announced his intention to resign as Chair of the SSAC upon the selection by the SSAC of a new Chair and appointment by the Board. Whereas, the SSAC initiated an election for Chair and Vice Chair from the members of the Committee beginning 10 December 2010 and ending 07 January 2011. Whereas, the Committee elected Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as Vice Chair. Whereas, on 25 January 2011 the Board appointed Patrik Fältström as the new Chair of the SSAC. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.08), that Dr. Crocker has earned the tremendous gratitude and deep appreciation of the Board for his tireless service and dedication to ICANN as Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Dr. Crocker well in all future endeavours. i. Approval to Track Global Policy Process for IPv4 Post-Exhaustion Whereas, the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO Address Council in Accordance with the ASO MoU, states that "When, in accordance with step 1 in the Global Policy Development Process of the ASO MoU (Attachment A, article 1), ICANN staff liaising with the addressing community becomes aware of a global policy development within the scope of the ASO MoU, ICANN staff informs the ICANN Board of this development. The Board decides, as and when appropriate, that this development should be followed by ICANN staff and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose. ICANN staff so assigned shall inform all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, shall establish an ICANN web page to be kept up to date and shall compile a background report to be kept up to date on this global policy development. This background report shall be provided to the Board as requested." Whereas, ICANN staff has informed the Board that a policy proposal entitled "Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by the IANA post exhaustion" is in development and that this Proposal has entered the first adoption steps within the individual RIRs as well as being recognized by the ASO Address Council as a valid Global Policy Proposal. Whereas, the Proposal is identified as a global policy development within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the ASO. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.09), the Board requests that the development of the policy proposal entitled "Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by the IANA post exhaustion" be followed by ICANN staff in line with the Board's Review Procedures for such policy proposals and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.09 The Global Policy Proposal has reached the discussion stage in all Regional Internet Registries and the time is ripe to start producing and posting Background Reports on the Proposal's status. Directing staff to conduct the required tracking work is in furtherance of ICANN's obligations under the MoU with the ASO and the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies. There will be a nominal budgetary impact when directing staff to track the Proposal, as ICANN staff are already allocated to the ASO, and the tracking of proposals at this stage require limited staff effort. If approved, future implementation may pose additional impacts on the budget, public and security/stability related issues, but those are not ripe for assessment at this time. Requiring staff tracking at this stage will also allow for advance preparation in advance of a request from the ASO for ratification. j. Approval of RSSAC Review Implementation Plan Whereas, on 5 August 2010, the Board resolved to receive the Final Report of the RSSAC review Working Group, and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) "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", at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#2.f. Whereas, ICANN staff members supporting the organizational reviews identified a set of measures in a document "RSSAC review WG final report: implementation steps", dated December 2010, to address the recommendations arising out of the Working Group and provided those to the SIC. Whereas, the SIC finds the proposed measures are adequate and proposes to have staff, working in coordination with the SIC, to finalize an implementation plan based upon the implementation steps identified, and to provide a final implementation plan to the Board for receipt and consideration. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.10), the Board approves the "RSSAC review WG final report: implementation steps" put forward by the SIC and instructs the SIC, in coordination with staff, to provide the Board with a final implementation plan to address the conclusions and recommendations in the final reports of the RSSAC review Working Group. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.10 The proposed implementation steps were provided to the Board in fulfillment of the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution requiring the submission of this proposal. The implementation steps address the recommendations arising out of the Review Working Group's Final Report. A draft Final Report was posted for public comment and no comments were received, including none indicating that there would be a negative impact if the recommendations were adopted. Further, adoption of the implementation plan for the RSSAC Review will set the stage for a dedicated staff effort to improve cooperation and communication between ICANN and the root server operators within the framework of the RSSAC structure. Directing the creation of a final implementation plan will have a nominal budgetary impact, in that it will require further resources of the staff supporting ICANN's Organizational Reviews. The identification of final implementation steps is anticipated to occur within the resources already allocated. The further impact of the implementation work will be identified as practicable. k. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Create a Non-Voting Chair-Elect to the Nominating Committee Whereas, Article VII, Section 2 and 3 of the Bylaws govern the composition of the Nominating Committee (NomCom) and the terms of the NomCom members. Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-final-…, the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group recommended that the Chair of the NomCom be elected one year in advance, requiring changes to the ICANN Bylaws in Article VII, Section 2 and 3 at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VII. Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the NomCom Review 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, the SIC, at its 14 October 2010 meeting, recommended that the Bylaws should be amended to achieve the recommendation of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group by electing the NomCom Chair one year in advance, while also highlighting that the related Bylaws amendments must incorporate appropriate flexibility for the Board. Whereas, the Board, at its 28 October 2010 meeting, resolved that the proposed Bylaws amendments should be posted for public comments. Whereas, the proposed Bylaws amendments, see http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-vii-10nov10-en.pdf, were posted for public comments from 10 November to 10 December 2010 and this period elapsed without any comments being received. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.11), the Board approves the proposed Bylaws amendments and directs staff to work with the Structural Improvements Committee to prepare for implementation of the new provisions to be effective for the 2013 Nominating Committee. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.11 The Bylaws amendments proposed will have the purpose of achieving the recommendation of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group by designating the NomCom Chair one year in advance, while preserving appropriate flexibility for the Board to review the candidate for the Chair. As no public comments have been received indicating that this would not be a positive change regarding the Nominating Committee and its processes. The budgetary impact of this is neutral, as the transition from the non-voting advisor to the Chair to the Chair-Elect does not represent a change in the number of Nominating Committee members supported through the budget for the Nominating Committee. l. Thanks to the 2010 Nominating Committee Whereas, on 27 August 2009, ICANN appointed Wolfgang Kleinwächter as Chair of the Nominating Committee. Whereas, the 2010 Nominating Committee consisted of delegates from each of ICANN's constituencies and advisory bodies. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.12), the ICANN Board expresses its deep appreciation to Wolfgang Kleinwächter and all of the members of the 2010 Nominating Committee for their dedication, hard work, and successful efforts. m. Approval of Redelegation of the .BF domain representing Burkina Faso Whereas, BF is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Burkina Faso. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .BF to the Autorité de Régulation des Communications Electroniques; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.13), the proposed redelegation of the .BF domain to the Autoritéde Régulation des Communications Electroniques is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.13 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. n. Approval of Redelegation of the .CD domain representing the Democratic Republic of Congo Whereas, CD is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .CD to Office Congolais des Postes et Telecommunications; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.14), the proposed redelegation of the .CD domain to the Office Congolais des Postes et Telecommunications is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.14 Why the Board is addresing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. o. Approval of Redelegation of the .SY domain representing the Syrian Arab Republic Whereas, SY is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the Syrian Arab Republic; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .SY to the National Agency for Network Services; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.15), the proposed redelegation of the .SY domain to the National Agency for Network Services is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.15 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. p. Approval of Delegation of the .한국 ("Hanguk") domain representing the Republic of Korea in Korean Whereas, 한국 ("Hanguk"), encoded as "xn--3e0b707e", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the Republic of Korea through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .한국 to the Korea Internet & Security Agency. 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 (2011.01.25.16), the proposed delegation of the .한국 domain to the Korea Internet & Security Agency is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.16 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. q. Approval of Delegation of the .新加坡 ("Singapore") domain, and the .சிங்கப்பூர் ("Singapore") domain, representing Singapore in Chinese and Tamil Whereas, Singapore is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, 新加坡 ("Singapore"), encoded as "xn--yfro4i67o"; and சிங்கப்பூர் ("Singapore"), encoded as "xn--clchc0ea0b2g2a9gcd"; are two strings that were deemed to appropriately represent Singapore through the IDN Fast Track process; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .新加坡 and .சிங்கப்பூர் to Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd; 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 (2011.01.25.17), the proposed delegation of the top-level domains to Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.17 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. r. Approval of Delegation of the .سورية ("Sourya") domain representing the Syrian Arab Republic in Arabic Whereas, the Syrian Arab Republic is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, .سورية ("Sourya"), encoded as "xn--ogbpf8fl", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the Syrian Arab Republic through the IDN Fast Track process. Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .سورية to the National Agency for Network Services. 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 (2011.01.25.18), the proposed delegation of the .سورية ("Sourya") domain to the National Agency for Network Services is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.18 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. s. Approval of Delegation of the seven top-level domains representing India in various languages Whereas, India is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard; Whereas, भारत ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--h2brj9c"; بھارت "Bharat"), encoded as "xn--mgbbh1a71e"; భారత్ ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--fpcrj9c3d"; ભારત ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--gecrj9c"; ਭਾਰਤ ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--s9brj9c"; இந்தியா ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--xkc2dl3a5ee0h"; and ভারত ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--45brj9c"; are seven strings that were deemed to appropriately represent India through the IDN Fast Track process; Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of the seven strings as top-level domains to the National Internet Exchange of India; Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegations would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.19), the proposed delegation of the seven top-level domains to the National Internet Exchange of India is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.19 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting. What is the proposal being considered? The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision. What significant materials did the Board review? The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request. What factors the Board found to be significant? The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal. Main Agenda =========== ============ 2. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendments Changing Term Ending Dates for Supporting Organization and At-Large Selected Board Members Whereas, the Bylaws currently require that all incoming members of the ICANN Board of Directors not selected by the Nominating Committee (NomCom) are seated on the Board six months after the prior year's Annual General Meeting (AGM). Whereas, six months after the prior year's AGM typically occurs in between ICANN's International Public Meetings ("Meeting"). Whereas, the Board Review Working Group (BRWG) recommended that the seating of Board members not appointed by NomCom occur at a mid-year Meeting to facilitate the smooth transition of Board members. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee ("BGC") considered this issue, agreed with the rationale of the BRWG, but recognized that a mid-year Meeting may not always occur; the BGC thus recommended modifications to the BRWG recommendation to allow for seating of incoming directors without delay. Whereas, proposed Bylaws amendments to reflect the BRWG recommendations were posted for public comment for two months (8 November 2010 through 8 January 2011) at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#bylaws-…. Whereas, just one public comment, supporting the proposed amendments, was received during the public comment period. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.20), the Board approves the proposed Bylaws amendments necessary to facilitate a change in transition of Board members selected by the Supporting Organizations or At-Large community. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.20 Following an independent review by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) of the ICANN Board (http://www.icann-ombudsman.com/en/reviews/board/report-02nov08-en.pdf) a Board Review Working Group (BRWG) as formed to help determine implementation feasibility of the BCG recommendations. The BRWG, after numerous meetings, extensive email communications and document analysis, issued its Final Report (http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf) in January 2010. One of the recommendations from the BRWG, which the Board considered, was to seat all board members not selected by the Nominating Committee, at an ICANN mid-term meeting. With some minor modifications to address the possibility that no mid-term meeting will occur, the Board believes that the BRWG recommendations are reasoned and geared toward ensuring smooth transition of Board members. The only comment received from the community was from ALAC and in support of the proposed Bylaws amendments. (See http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-article-vi8/msg00000.html "The Proposed Bylaws Amendments on Board Member Term Transitions are in alignment with ALAC philosophies related to transitions. The ALAC welcomes and support these amendments.") The Board expects that this will have a positive public impact, in that typically new Board members will be seated at the conclusion of a Meeting, allowing for outgoing Board members to conclude their terms at the conclusion of that same Meeting. A transition period provides for a much smoother transition than changing terms in between Board meetings. The outgoing Board members will be able to complete a cycle of being briefed about and then addressing matters pending for discussion and decision at the next meeting. Likewise, the new Board members will be able to start afresh with the next issues at the beginning of the process. The Board's decision may have a minimal financial impact on ICANN in that both outgoing and incoming Board members' travel and accommodations will be funded to the transition Meeting. As currently structured, however, additional funding would be required for no more than four Board members, and often less. It is unlikely that the potential amount of additional travel support that may be required will have an impact on the budget or the community. The Board sees no impact on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. 3. Approval of Telnic RSEP request for release of numeric-only strings except for single-character labels Whereas, Telnic submitted a Request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .TEL Registry Agreement to allow the allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL. Whereas, .TEL is one of the only two gTLDs currently not allowed to allocate numeric-only domain names. Whereas, ICANN evaluated the proposed amendment to the .TEL Registry Agreement as a new registry service pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, did not identify any security, stability or competition issues, and posted an amendment for public comment and Board consideration (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14oct10-en.htm) Whereas, the potential issues cited during the public comment period and by ICANN were adequately addressed by Telnic's responses. Whereas, approving the proposal would augment the options available to registrants for registering names in .TEL. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.21), the amendment to allow allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendment. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.21 Why the Board is addressing the issue now? On 8 October 2010 Telnic submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .TEL Registry Agreement to allow the allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL. ICANN advised Telnic that an amendment to Appendices 6, Schedule of Reserved Names, and S, the Charter, would be necessary to implement the new service. ICANN determined the amendment was a substantial change to the Registry Agreement; therefore, Board consideration was necessary. What are the proposals being considered? The Board considered whether or not to approve the proposed amendment to allow the allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL. What Stakeholders or others were consulted? The proposed amendment was subject to public comment from 14 October 2010 through 13 November 2010; four comments were received, one was supportive, one did not address the merits of the proposal but made a suggestion to enhance it, one raised a potential issue, and the last one was the response from Telnic. ICANN asked Telnic to address the issues raised in the public comment forum and by ICANN, which Telnic and .TEL's delegated policy-making authority "the IPAG" did by submitting each one a letter to ICANN. What concerns or issues were raised by community? One commenter raised the following issue in the public comment forum: 1) whether the proposal might constitute a fundamental change to the TLD; and as a corollary, 2) whether the delegated policy-making authority was followed. What significant materials did Board review? While considering the proposed amendment, the Board reviewed the following materials: the request from Telnic for a new registry service <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/telnic-request-08oct10-en.pdf>; the proposed amendment subject of the Board resolution <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/tel/proposed-tel-amendment-2-14oct1…>; public comments related to the amendment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/tel-numeric-only-domains/>; a letter from .TEL's IPAG addressing the issues raised <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/conroy-to-pritz-25nov10-en.pdf>; and a letter from Telnic addressing the issues raised <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/mahdavi-to-schwartz-07jan11-en.pdf>. What factors the Board Found to be Significant? 1.ICANN conducted the threshold security, stability and competition review on the proposed service pursuant to the RSEP, and did not identify any significant issues. Numeric-only names have been allowed in 14 gTLDs and several ccTLDs for years without harm to the security or stability of the Internet. From a purely technical point of view, there is no difference on what TLD allows the numeric-only names, therefore there is no new issue created by this proposal. ICANN advised Telnic that an amendment to Appendices 6, Schedule of Reserved Names, and S, the Charter, would be necessary to implement the new service. 2.The proposed amendment was available for public comment from 14 October 2010 through 13 November 2010; four comments were received, one was supportive, one did not address the merits of the proposal but made a suggestion to enhance it, one raised a potential issue, and the last one was the response from Telnic. The comment period produced no clear consensus view on whether or not the amendment should be approved; each commenter provided input suggesting a different path, and some issues, described above, were noted. 3.The comment from Tim Ruiz (registrar GoDaddy.com, Inc.) suggested that the proposal might constitute a fundamental change to the purpose of the TLD. Ruiz further added that Telnic's promise not to allow numeric-only second-level registrations was a fundamental aspect of its application and a primary reason why .TEL was awarded to Telnic and not Pulver (another bidder for .TEL sTLD at the time). He concluded that this request should not be granted without requiring the rebidding of the .TEL sTLD itself, giving an opportunity for others to bid competitively. 4.Khashayar Mahdavi, CEO of Telnic Limited (.TEL registry) submitted a response to Tim Ruiz's comment. He stated that the proposal is not a fundamental change to the nature of .TEL, since the restriction on all-numeric strings has nothing to do with the nature of .TEL and was instead a measure put in place to address initial concerns about potential conflicts with ENUM. He stated that .TEL's purpose, as described in its Charter, is to serve the community of users who wish to use a TLD to store and publish their contact information in the DNS. 5.In response to ICANN's request, .TEL's policy-making body, IPAG provided additional information in a letter on 25 November 2010 explaining the policy development and approval process that was followed, in order to develop the RSEP request. 6.In the same letter, the Chairman of the IPAG, Lawrence Conroy, a well-recognized ENUM expert, explained why the proposal does not create a technical issue with ENUM. Conroy stated that "In this proposal, single-digitlabels (such as 1.tel or 4.tel) are reserved, rather than continuing to apply ablanket prohibition of all numeric labels (such as 3663.tel); that is not neededor useful. By blocking all single digit labels, the root of an ENUM tree cannotbe placed directly in .tel. ENUM simply doesn't work with multi-digit labels.Telnic did not and does not intend to launch any alternative to ENUM, and hasa long standing agreement with ICANN that this will be the case for .tel." (the letter is included in the Annex). 7.In a letter from Telnic on 7 January 2011, in response to ICANN's request, Telnic explained why they believe the proposal would not cause confusion between a numeric-only name under .TEL and what might be considered to be a corresponding telephone number. Telnic noted the issue has not been raised before, that adequate tools exists to deal with instances of actual user confusion and/or misrepresentation, and that other TLDs already offer such names without restriction or problems. Lastly, Telnic remarked that should user confusion be identified as an actual problem; their IPAG is well qualified to address any issues that may arise. 8..TEL is one of the two gTLDs that is prohibited from allocating numeric-only domain names. By approving the proposal, .TEL would be in a better position to compete with the rest of the gTLDs in the market, which in turn, would provide more options to registrants. Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts? By approving the proposed amendment, the gTLD market will be more competitive by allowing .TEL to have a similar offering to the rest of the gTLDs, and more importantly, the registrants will have more options to choose for registration. Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public? There are no foreseen fiscal impacts/ramifications of approving this amendment on the Strategic Plan, the Operating Plan, Budget, the community, or the public. Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS? The proposed service related to the amendment was subject to the preliminary security and stability review pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy. ICANN did not identify any security, stability or competition issues: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/arias-to-shadrunov-14oct10-en.pdf. 4.Rationale documents ====================== a. Economic Studies – adopting rationale Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the Board recognized that the overarching issue of the call for economic analysis, has been addressed by comprehensive expert consultation and analyses, including reports by CRA International, Dennis Carlton, Michael Katz and Greg Rosston. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#2. Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the Board acknowledged that with respect to the call for economic analysis, ICANN is in the process of receiving and reviewing public comment, and the Board will take into account that public comment including the advice of the GAC and directed staff to make change http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#2. Whereas, all economic studies have confirmed the overall benefits of continuing to open the domain name space, in terms of enabling innovation, increasing choice and fostering a healthier competitive environment. Whereas, the introduction of detailed rules and safeguard mechanisms via community comments in the successive versions of the draft applicant guidebook is the appropriate way to minimize the potential costs related to the implementation of this policy and optimize the use of the domain name space as a common global resource Whereas, in order to avoid the opportunity costs of further delays, efforts should now be focused on finalizing those mechanisms, during the Board-GAC meeting in February and the community interaction at the Silicon Valley meeting in March. Whereas the CEO shall continue to ensure that staff takes into account public comment on New gTLD Economic Study Phase II, as well as the advice of the GAC on the call for economic studies, and make revisions as appropriate to the Final Applicant Guidebook. Whereas the CEO will carefully watch timing of implementation and fulfill ICANN's obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments that if and when new gTLDs have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion. Whereas, the Board has considered rationale for making this decision and is in the process of revising the rationale, which will be made part of the minutes from this meeting upon approval. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.22), the Board will not commission any further economic studies on new gTLDs in advance of making its decision on the launch of the new gTLD Program as the Board has determined that no further commissioned economic studies could better inform the Board's decision. Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.22 Pursuant to the Board's resolution, the rationale as discussed during the meeting is being revised and will be posted as approved with the minutes of the meeting. b. Cross-ownership - adopting rationale Whereas, on 5 November 2010, the Board passed a resolution on the issue of cross-ownership between registries and registrars for the New gTLD Program. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm. Whereas, the Board has reviewed and considered a Proposed Rationale explaining the Board's decision. RESOLVED (2010.01.25.23), the Board adopts the Proposed Rationale as the Rationale for the Board's decision on cross-ownership between registries and registrars in the New gTLD Program. Rationale for Resolution 2010.01.25.23 The rationale discussed during the Board meeting is being revised and will be posted in draft form with the Preliminary Report of this meeting, and as approved by the Board with minutes of this meeting . 5.Board/GAC Consultations ========================= a. New gTLDs ============= Whereas, the ICANN Board and ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has scheduled a meeting from 28 February – 1 March 2011 in Brussels, Belgium ("Meeting") to discuss a specific list of issues raised by the GAC relating to the New gTLD Program as follows ("Topics"): ■The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees; ■Procedures for the review of sensitive strings; ■Root Zone Scaling; ■Market and Economic Impacts; ■Registry – Registrar Separation; ■Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issues; ■Post-delegation disputes with governments; ■Use and protection of geographical names; ■Legal recourse for applicants; ■Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries; ■Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué; and ■The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names). Whereas, the Meeting is not intended to be the consultation mandated by Article XI, section 2, paragraph 1(j) of the ICANN Bylaws. Whereas, the Board wishes to trigger the Bylaws mandated consultation to take place during ICANN's Silicon Valley/San Francisco ("SV/SF") meeting scheduled for 13-18 March 2011. Whereas, the Board intends for the Bylaws mandated consultation during the SV/SF meeting to be limited to the Topics discussed during the Meeting. Resolved (2011.01.25.24), the ICANN Board hereby determines that it intends to progress toward launching the New gTLD Program, as close as practically possible to the form as set out in the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook. Resolved (2011.01.25.25), the Board hereby determines to take actions on the Topics listed above that, at present, are not consistent with GAC advice. Resolved (2011.01.25.26), the ICANN Board hereby triggers the consultation as provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), which shall take place on Thursday, 17 March 2011, during the ICANN SV/SF meeting. Resolved (2011.01.25.27), the Bylaws-mandated consultation triggered above shall be limited to the Topics discussed at the Meeting for which the Board has not changed its position during or after the Meeting, and that remain not consistent with GAC advice. Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.24 – 2011.01.25.27 Both the Board and the GAC have identified a need to have a consultation regarding the outstanding issues relating to the proposed launch of a new gTLD program. Both parties have agreed that this is the correct time to have this consultation. The Board will review all of the papers (including supporting materials and references) prepared for the meeting in consideration of GAC advice. Further, the Board has consulted with all stakeholders throughout the process for posting and revising each version of the Applicant Guidebook on issues identified by the GAC. The particular issues raised by the GAC that will be addressed at the Meeting are found in the GAC Cartagena Communique. http://gac.icann.org/press-release/gac-2010-communique-39. Conducting the Meeting and the Bylaws Consultation between the Board and the GAC should have a positive impact on the community. It assures the entire community that the Board is taking the comment process and its Bylaws requirements seriously and hopes to achieve as much consensus as possible. There will be a significant fiscal impact on ICANN's budget as a result of the Meeting, which will require additional resources for travel, accommodations, meeting space and related expenses. This includes expenses for some GAC members, Board members, staff members and possibly other representatives. GAC members that are not funded to this Meeting may also feel some fiscal impact if they choose to attend the Meeting in person. There are no security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS that will result from holding the Meeting or the Bylaws Consultation. b. ICM ====== Whereas, at its meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, the Board noted its agreement with the staff's assessment of potential conflicts with GAC advice if the Board proceeds with its determination to enter a registry agreement with ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD, and invoked the GAC consultation process. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#4. Whereas, during the meeting in Cartagena, the GAC sought affirmative statements from the Board on its positions on ICM-related items. Whereas, in an attempt to make a future consultation with the GAC as productive as possible, the Board position on all items of GAC advice are clearly set forth in an attached document. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.28), the Board directs staff to provide the GAC with the document setting forth the full Board position on items of GAC advice. The Board positions set forth correspond to the items identified for consultation at the Board's 28 October 2010 meeting. RESOLVED (2011.01.25.29), the ICANN Board hereby establishes that the consultation on ICM as triggered in Cartagena and as provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), shall take place no later than Thursday, 17 March 2011. Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.28 – 2011.01.25.29 As the Board has continued in its consideration of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD, on 28 October 2010, the Board identified areas requiring consultation with the GAC prior to the Board entering a proposed Registry Agreement with ICM, as certain pieces of GAC advice may not be consistent with the Board's anticipated action. The Board's obligation to consult with the GAC arises out of Article XI, Section 2.1(j)-(k) of the ICANN Bylaws, and the Board formally invoked the consultation process at its meeting in Cartagena. In order to make the consultation as productive as possible, and to address the GAC's concern that it receive the Board's position on whether entering into a Registry Agreement with ICM would be inconsistent with GAC advice, the attached provides further detail and specific citations to support the Board's position on each piece of GAC advice. The provision of a comprehensive Board position document is likely to result in a positive impact on the public. The position document provides detail and explanation that will benefit the entirety of the ICANN community as the discussions surrounding the anticipated approval of a Registry Agreement for the .XXX sTLD continue. The forwarding of this document does not pose any fiscal impact on ICANN, the community or the public, however there may be additional costs and expenses incurred in facilitating the consultation between the Board and the GAC, including travel and lodging expenses. The provision of the position document will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. 6. Report on AOC Reviews including ATRT Recommendations – Next Steps ===================================================================== Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments required ICANN to organize a review – to be completed no later than December 31, 2010 – of its execution of commitments to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders; Whereas, as required by the Affirmation, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) submitted its final report to the Board on 31 December 2010 and posted it for public comment through 14 February 2011; Whereas, the Affirmation states that the Board will take action on the resulting recommendations within six months of receipt of the report; RESOLVED (2011.01.25.30), the Board acknowledges the hard work and dedication of ICANN's ATRT members and thanks these volunteers for engaging in an intensive, public process, under challenging deadlines, to produce a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve ICANN; RESOLVED (2011.01.25.31), the Board encourages the public to comment on the ATRT recommendations, and requests that all Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, and the Nominating Committee, provide the Board with initial input on the Report, by 14 February 2011, and that the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Nominating Committee work with the Board to consider actions on recommendations related to their organizations; RESOLVED (2011.01.25.32), the Board requests that ICANN Staff provide the Board with a proposal for Board action on each recommendation and, where practicable, proposed, initial work plans and budgets for the recommendations, along with a status report on efforts related to all recommendations, by 21 February 2011, taking into account all input received. Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.30 – 2011.01.25.32 Adherence to the Affirmation of Commitments requires ICANN to undertake the creation of proposals for Board action on each recommendation arising out of Accountability and Transparency Review Team's (ATRT) Final Report. While this work is already underway, ICANN's commitment to accountability transparency is furthered through the transparent tracking of the process. The community response to the ATRT's final recommendations is still being provided through the open public comment process. The creation of the proposal for Board action will have a budgetary impact on the organization. Significant staff resources will be devoted to the creation of the proposal, and the proposal itself will identify further budgetary considerations in the implementation of the recommendations. There is a potential that the financial resources of the organization may need to be reallocated to allow sufficient staff support to create a meaningful proposal.

2 4

RE: [council] SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
by john＠crediblecontext.com Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

2 1

SO and AC Chairs meeting with Rod before SF
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

Councillors, FYI, Rod is inviting the SO and AC Chairs to a 2-day meeting prior to the ICANN SF meeting. The idea is to have informal discussions and to help the SO and AC Chairs get to know each other better. I have not agreed to going yet, but have asked what the cost of the meeting would be, which part of the ICANN meeting this would come from, whether the meeting would be official? I am told the additional costs would be negligible and part of the ICANN meeting budget. If anyone is opposed to me going, please say so. Thanks, Stéphane

5 10

Fwd: DNSCERT
by Stéphane Van Gelder Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

Councillors, In December 2010 the Council passed the resolution: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201012 MOTION APPROVING THE DRAFT CHARTER OF THE JOINT DNS SECURITY AND STABILITY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (DSSA-WG) http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201012 refer particularly to: WHEREAS, a Drafting Team of the Chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC, and the GNSO, along with interested representatives from those organizations, produced a Draft Charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November 2010 at:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves this Draft Charter and encourages GNSO constituencies, stakeholder groups, and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter. The GNSO should now identify possible participants of the DSSA-WG with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the Draft Charter. It is my understanding that the GNSO has not done this except for Zahid Jamil and Scott McCormick (from the CBUC) who have volunteered and who were on the original charter drafting working group. Please remind your groups of this Joint WG and solicit volunteers. Thanks, Stéphane

1 0