December 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Response to the GAC regarding November 28th Letter
by Neuman, Jeff Jan. 29, 2013

Jan. 29, 2013

All, In the past few days, a few of us at Neustar have been thinking about a proposed response to the November 28th letter from the GAC to the GNSO on the determination to initiate a PDP on the protection of names of international organizations. Given that we should be drafting a response, we took a stab at coming up with a first draft to get your input on. This is just a first draft, but one which we believe sets the right non-confrontational tone on some issues that we know are sensitive to a number of GAC members (and ICANN community members alike). We have also taken a stab at defining how policy development has traditionally applied to ICANN activities before the whole onslaught of new gTLD issues. Please let me know your thoughts on this letter and whether this serves as a good starting point to finalize a response. Thanks! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Madam Chair: I am writing in response to your letter dated 28 November 2012 seeking information about the GNSO's determination to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of the names of international organizations "in all gTLDs." We are not aware of a bright line test to distinguish "policy" from "implementation" in general, or in the ICANN context, and believe that this question might benefit from further review and consideration within ICANN's multi-stakeholder processes. For purposes of responding to your letter, however, the term "policy development" has traditionally applied to ICANN's consideration of an issue that is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement and involves developing an approach that (1) is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations; (2) is likely to have lasting value of applicability; (3) will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; and/or (4) implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy. The ICANN Board, the ICANN staff, and the GNSO has each concluded at different points that the question of enhanced protections for international governmental organizations ("IGO's") and international non-governmental organizations ("INGO's") at the top and second level meets the criteria described above. We do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice to the ICANN Board in May 2011 regarding protections for the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") and the Red Cross/Red Crescent ("RC/RC") names, nor do we dispute the fact that ICANN received preliminary legal advice that some 60 countries protect certain intellectual properties of the IOC and RC/RC. We note, however, that most such laws - like the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol itself - provide exceptions for non-commercial uses, pre-existing commercial uses, and certain geographic references, among other things. (To our knowledge, however, these laws would not create intermediary liability or impose affirmative obligations on ICANN, registries, and/or registrars with respect to third party registrations.) In any case, policy development is needed to determine what, if any, exceptions (i.e., for pre-existing, non-commercial, and/or geographic use) should apply in the domain name context - particularly at the second level and in both new and existing TLDs. Likewise, we do not dispute the validity of the GAC's advice in Toronto with respect to the use of the current .int registration requirements as a starting basis for protection of IGO names and acronyms. We also appreciate your point that this advice is "complementary" to the provision of the Applicant Guidebook permitting use of the .int registration criteria as the basis for IGOs to file a Legal Rights Objection to a new gTLD application. We do not understand, however, how a prohibition of even non-infringing uses of an IGO's acronym at the first or second level is merely an implementation of the Legal Rights Objection policy, which provides for an independent panel to determine whether an applicant's potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe the objector's existing IGO name or acronym. The views and perspectives of various participants in this discussion, including those of the Governmental Advisory Committee, have evolved over time - including quite recently. The GNSO believes that the issues identified above fall within the definition of "policy" used by ICANN. We understand, of course, that the policy development process can be time consuming. We also understand that some may view resort to policy development as a delaying or blocking tactic. With respect to the question of enhanced protections for international governmental organizations, however, the GNSO has attempted to find practical solutions to ensure that reasonable protections are in place during the pendency of the policy discussions. That approach is reflected in the ICANN Board's recent resolutions to create a moratorium on registration of certain names at the second level pending this policy work. Perhaps we are misunderstanding the distinction between "policy" and "implementation" drawn by the GAC, and, as previously stated, the GNSO Council would welcome further dialogue on this point. Meanwhile, we do take seriously our obligation to respond in a collaborative, timely and transparent way when policy development is necessary. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 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/>

9 20

Comments regarding the strawman
by Mason Cole Dec. 29, 2012

Dec. 29, 2012

All -- I don't at all mean to pick on Brian personally, but I became aware earlier of a news article covering our most recent council meeting. (A side note: we should remember that the media and others listen in on our call, and our conversations are public and could end up in news coverage.) The article says: Brian Winterfeldt, Steptoe & Johnson, an IPC representative on the GNSO Council, said that the IPC does not agree with all points of the draft response. The IPC understood the strawman proposal to be the product of negotiations that resulted in a consensus among the participants—including representatives from all ICANN constituencies, Winterfeldt said. “Stakeholders who now say that rights protections should not be revisited cast doubt on the good faith of negotiations.” For avoidance of doubt, I want to restate the RrSG's understandings. Our representatives in the meeting were there at Fadi's request to discuss the trademark clearinghouse and to listen to staff's input on the strawman. They would not at all characterize that (or any meeting on the strawman) as a negotiation, nor would they say consensus exists on the content of the proposals. It was clear there would be an opportunity for comment following the meetings. Our participation in those discussions can't be presumed to be acceptance of the proposals or the process by which they were considered. I made that point on our 20 December call, I believe, but thank you for indulging my repeating it. Mason

2 1

New gTLD Weekly Update (21 December 2012)
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-21dec12-en New gTLD Weekly Update (21 December 2012) This will be the last new gTLD Weekly Update for 2012, so it seems appropriate to pause and take a look back at all we've accomplished this year. We've been incredibly busy, and with your help, we've accomplished a great deal and made significant progress moving the New gTLD Program forward. Let's reflect on what this year has seen... *APPLICATION WINDOW: The successful opening and closing of the new gTLD application period. Though the TAS issue caused some delay, we used the opportunity to learn and improve the process. The culmination of the application round was an exciting Reveal Day on 13 June in London where we revealed to the world the 1930 applied-for new gTLD strings. *APPLICANT SUPPORT PROGRAM: Though we only received three applications for this program, the Applicant Support Program still is a significant part of the New gTLD program and will continue to be. A special Thank You goes out to all of the volunteer Support Applicant Review Panelists for their hard work and dedication. *APPLICATION COMMENTS: We launched the Application Comment period on 13 June and scheduled it to run for 60 days. However, we were urged by many of you to extend the comment period and so we did - an additional 45 days for an eventual 105-day comment period. A total of 11,682 comments were received during this 105-day period. *PROGRAM FEEDBACK: The Program Feedback forum launched on 13 June. This forum remains open for the duration of the application round. Comments will be used to make improvements to the program. *OBJECTION PERIOD & INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR: The Objection period started on 13 June. Originally scheduled to end seven months from Reveal Day, we listened to the community and extended it to 13 March 2013. Also, as announced in May, Professor Alain Pellet was appointed as the Independent Objector for the New gTLD Program. *TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE: We have seen two important developments relating to the Trademark Clearinghouse. In June, we announced Deloitte and IBM as providers to work with us on implementation of the Clearinghouse. In November, we posted a "Strawman Solution" for public comment. *INITIAL EVALUATION & CLARIFYING QUESTIONS: Initial Evaluation of all new gTLD applications began in July. We launched a Clarifying Questions (CQ) pilot in August/September to ensure clarifying questions are clear and that applicants can understand precisely what additional information they must provide to evaluators in order to get a passing score. CQs for Geographic Names applications were sent out in November and the first two Applicant Advisories have been posted to help applicants prepare for the remaining CQs scheduled to go out in January 2013. *UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION: We gathered and reviewed several proposals from potential Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) providers in response to our Request for Information (RFI). A decision regarding URS provider selection and the path forward can be expected very soon. *GAC ADVICE & EARLY WARNINGS: The GAC Advice Registry launched in July and GAC Early Warnings on new gTLD applications were delivered in November. *APPLICANT COMMUNICATIONS: In August, we began our monthly Applicant Update Webinar Series to keep you informed and provide a way for you to ask questions between major ICANN meetings. We began Weekly Updates, like this one, introduced brief Video Updates on relevant trending topics, and added an Applicants' Corner page to the Microsite to help you find resources more easily. *BATCHING/METERING OF APPLICATIONS: And finally, with your help, we successfully executed the Prioritization Draw. 100% of the proceeds collected will be donated to the following three charities: Kiva Microfunds, Invenio, and Wikimedia Foundation. You can find final results of the Draw on the Current Application Status page. Thanks to all of you who attended and participated in the Draw in Los Angeles. It was yet another milestone achieved in a year filled with them. In addition to the above major developments, the new gTLD Customer Service Center has been working hard throughout the year to answer your questions, process change requests and provide continual support to all applicants. As we look towards 2013 we see more milestones ready to achieve. New gTLD applications will begin to make their way through Initial Evaluation and on to contracting, pre-delegation and delegation. Thank you for your patience, hard work, and input. This program would not be possible without you. Wishing everyone a very happy and prosperous New Year! ~ Michele Jourdan, Manager new gTLD Communications

1 0

Board resolutions from ICANN Board meeting of 20 Dec 2012
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

Hello All, See below for the resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting on 20 Dec 2012. Key resolutions that may be of interest to the GNSO include: - approval of Buenos Aires, Argentina as the location of the meeting from 17-21 November 2013 - approval of GNSO policy recommendations for Inter-Registrar Transfer Procedure Part C - approval of changes to the by-laws to align all Board director terms with AGM meetings (note this means that seat #13 currently held by me will have its term extended to the AGM in 2013 - and will then be aligned with AGMs thereafter - I abstained from voting on this aspect of the resolution. Note also that there is no changes to the dates when elections must be held to appoint people to the Board) - approval of changes to the reconsideration process and independent review tribunal as recommended by the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) - approval of 2014 ICANN Meetings in Singapore and London (England) - approval of investment policy to preserve the new gTLD application fees as part of the new gTLD process Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20dec12-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 20 December 2012 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes Resolved (2012.12.20.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 13 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board. Resolved (2012.12.20.02), the Board approves the minutes of the 18 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board. Resolved (2012.12.20.03), the Board approves the minutes of the 18 October 2012 Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board. Resolved (2012.12.20.04), the Board approves the minutes of the 8 November 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. b. SSAC Thank You to Departing Members Whereas, Frederico Neves was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 17 May 2002 and reappointed on 10 August 2010 for a 2-year term ending on 31 December 2012. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Frederico Neves for his service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Whereas, Rick Wilhelm was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 26 June 2009 and reappointed on 10 August 2010 for a 2-year term ending on 31 December 2012. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Rick Wilhelm for his service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Resolved (2012.12.20.05), Rick Wilhelm 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 Mr. Wilhelm well in all future endeavours. Resolved (2012.12.20.06), Frederico Neves 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 Mr. Neves well in all future endeavours. c. SSAC Member Reappointments Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.07 approved Bylaws revisions that create three-year terms for SSAC members, require staggering of terms, and obligate the SSAC chair to recommend the reappointment of all current SSAC members to full or partial terms to implement the Bylaws revisions. Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.08 appointed SSAC members to terms of one, two, and three years beginning on 01 January 2011 and ending on 31 December 2011, 31 December 2012, and 31 December 2013. Whereas, in July 2011 the SSAC Membership Committee initiated an annual review of SSAC members whose terms are ending 31 December 2012 and submitted to the SSAC its recommendations for reappointments. Whereas, on 12 October 2012, the SSAC members approved the reappointments. Whereas, the SSAC recommends that the Board reappoint the following SSAC members to three-year terms: Alain Aina, Jaap Akkerhuis, Patrik Fältström, Jim Galvin, Doug Maughan, Ram Mohan, Doron Shikmoni, Rick Wesson, and Suzanne Woolf. Resolved (2012.12.20.07), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and reappoints the following SSAC members to three-year terms beginning 01 January 2013 and ending 31 December 2015: Alain Aina, Jaap Akkerhuis, Patrik Fältström, Jim Galvin, Doug Maughan, Ram Mohan, Doron Shikmoni, Rick Wesson, and Suzanne Woolf. d. Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Bylaws Amendments Posting for Public Comment Whereas, in Resolution 2011.01.25.10, the Board approved the RSSAC review final report implementation steps and instructed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), in coordination with staff, to provide the Board with a final implementation plan to address the RSSAC review final recommendations and conclusions. Whereas, in July and August 2012, a working group of RSSAC and SIC members was formed to draft a revised RSSAC charter in order to meet the requirements of the final RSSAC review recommendations. The RSSAC Charter is set forth within the ICANN Bylaws at Article XI, Section 2.3. Whereas, on 4 December 2012, the SIC reviewed the proposed Bylaws revisions and recommended that the suggested changes to Article XI, Section 2.3 be posted for public comment. Resolved (2012.12.20.08), the Board directs the ICANN President and CEO to post for public comment the proposed changes to Article XI, Section 2.3 of the ICANN Bylaws that are necessary to modify the charter for the RSSAC in line with the recommendations arising out of the organizational review of the RSSAC. e. Location of November 2013 ICANN Public Meeting 48 Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2013 in the Latin America/Caribbean region as per its policy, Whereas, no viable proposals to serve as host for the ICANN 2013 Latin America/Caribbean Meeting were received. Whereas, ICANN staff performed a thorough search to identify available facilities in Latin America/Caribbean that meet the Meeting Selection Criteria. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee reviewed and recommended the budget for the ICANN 2013 Latin America/Caribbean Meeting as proposed. Whereas the Board Public Participation Committee reviewed the staff proposal and supports the proposition for the location of the ICANN 2013 Latin America/Caribbean Meeting. Resolved (2012.12.20.09), the Board accepts the proposal of the staff, and approves that the ICANN 2013 Latin America/Caribbean Meeting shall be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 17-21 November 2013, with a budget not to exceed US$2.37M, and that the Buenos Aires meeting be designated as ICANN's 2013 Annual General Meeting. 2. Main Agenda: a. GNSO Council Recommendations IRTP Part C Whereas on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Procedure Part C (IRTP Part C) addressing three charter questions, set forth at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtppdpwg/3.+WG+Charter; Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012; Whereas the IRTP Part C Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined in the Charter; Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of the IRTP Part C WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 17 October 2012 by a unanimous vote (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4) Whereas the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required supermajority voting threshold to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties. Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments have been summarized and considered (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-recommendations-22oct12-…) Resolved (2012.20.12.10) the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy Recommendations amending the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm. Resolved (2012.20.12.11) the CEO is to develop and complete an implementation plan for these Recommendations and continue communication with the community on such work. b. Board Term Alignment Whereas, there are currently two induction periods to the ICANN Board each year, one at or around the Mid-Year Meeting for members appointed by the Supporting Organizations and the At-Large Community, and the other at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting for members selected by the Nominating Committee (NomCom). Whereas, the ICANN Board has long considered the issue of timing of Board member transition one of Board effectiveness, as each transition period raises the obligation to consider changes to Board committee composition, as well as introduction of new members to Board processes. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) considered how Board terms could be aligned to allow all Board members selected in any year to begin their terms at the same time, while still preserving the ability for the NomCom to consider the geographic diversity of the Board over the coming year. Whereas, proposed revisions to the ICANN Bylaws were drafted to achieve alignment of Board terms while preserving the ability for the NomCom to consider the geographic diversity of the Board, and those Bylaws revisions were posted for public comment and considered by the Board. Resolved (2012.12.20.12), the Board approves the amendments to Article VI, Section 8.1.d of the ICANN Bylaws as posted for public comment, addressing the terms of Seats 9 and 12. Resolved (2012.12.20.13), the Board approves the amendments to Article VI, Section 8.1.e of the ICANN Bylaws as posted for public comment, addressing the terms of Seats 10 and 13. Resolved (2012.12.20.14), the Board approves the amendments to Article VI, Section 8.1.f of the ICANN Bylaws as posted for public comment, addressing the terms of Seats 11 and 14. Resolved (2012.12.20.15), the Board approves the amendments to Article VI, Section 8.1.g of the ICANN Bylaws as posted for public comment, addressing the terms of Seat 15. Resolved (2012.12.20.16) the Board directs the President and CEO and the General Counsel and Secretary to take all necessary steps to inform the Supporting Organizations and At-Large Community of the revised deadlines within which they are required to complete selections for the Board of Directors. c. Accountability Structures Expert Panel Recommendations Whereas, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's Recommendations 23 and 25 recommended that ICANN retain independent experts to review ICANN's accountability structures and the historical work performed on those structures. Whereas, under the guidance of the Board Governance Committee (BGC), ICANN convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP), comprised of three international experts on issues of corporate governance, accountability and international dispute resolution. Whereas, after research and review of ICANN's Reconsideration and Independent Review processes, as well as multiple opportunities for public input, the ASEP produced a report in October 2012. Whereas, the report was posted for public comment, along with proposed Bylaws revisions to address the recommendations within the report. Whereas, after review and consideration of the public comment received, including consideration by the ASEP, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to proceed to implementation of the ASEP's recommendations. Whereas, additional implementation work is required prior to launching ICANN's revised Independent Review and Reconsideration processes as recommended by the ASEP. Resolved (2012.12.20.17) the Board accepts the report by Accountability Structures Expert Panel issued in October 2012 in fulfillment of Recommendations 23 and 25 of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Resolved (2012.12.20.18), the Board approves the Bylaws amendments to Article IV, Section 2 (Reconsideration) and Article VI, Section 3 (Independent Review) as posted for public comment, with an effective date to be determined by the Board after receiving a report from the President and CEO on the status of implementation. Resolved (2012.12.20.19), the Board directs the President and CEO to develop and execute implementation plans necessary to implement the ASEP recommendations and report to the Board in Beijing on the status of the implementation work, including a recommended effective date for the Bylaws. In the event that, during implementation, the President and CEO determine that issues raised during the public comment regarding the creation of a standing panel for the IRP require modification to the Bylaws, those limited modifications are to be provided to the Board for adoption prior to the recommended effective date for the Bylaws revisions. d. Proposal on the location of ICANN Meetings in 2014 Whereas, ICANN posted a Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal for public comment, and community comments did not evidence great support of the proposal; Whereas, ICANN has committed to identifying ICANN Meeting locations two years in advance; Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its 2014 Meetings in the Asia Pacific, Europe and North America regions as per its policy; Whereas, ICANN staff performed a thorough analysis of meeting venues in Singapore and London to ensure they meet the Meeting Selection Criteria, and will complete an assessment of available North America locations; Resolved (2012.12.20.20), the Board directs the President and CEO to make the necessary arrangements to conduct the 2014 ICANN Meetings in Singapore, London (England) and a city to be identified in North America. e. New gTLD Funds Investment Policy Whereas, ICANN wants to take measures so that the new gTLD funds remain first and foremost safeguarded and liquid during the period of implementation of the program. Whereas, ICANN has solicited external advice to design an investment policy that adheres to these objectives, while taking measures towards achieving a reasonable return. Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has reviewed the New gTLD Funds Investment Policy suggested, has met with the advisor (by phone), and has recommended to the Board that the policy be adopted. Resolved (2012.12.20.21), the Board adopts the New gTLD Funds Investment Policy. 3. Executive Session a. Approval of Compensation Supplement for Akram Atallah's Service as ICANN's President and CEO Whereas, on 31 May 2012, the Board appointed Akram Atallah to serve as ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") until Fadi Chehadé was available to take his seat as ICANN's President and CEO. Whereas, Akram Atallah served as both ICANN's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") and ICANN's President and CEO from 1 July 2012 through 13 September 2012. Whereas, when the Board appointed Akram Atallah to serve as ICANN's President and CEO, the Board agreed that rather than increase Mr. Atallah's base salaray, they would pay him a compensation supplement for his service. Whereas, as a not for profit California public benefit corporation that is exempt from Federal income taxes because it is an organization described in § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ICANN may not pay more than "reasonable compensation" for services rendered to ICANN. Whereas, when both Mr. Atallah and Mr. Chehadé were appointed as President and CEO of ICANN, the Compensation Committee and the full Board sought advice from independent professionals with appropriate expertise in compensation arrangements for U.S.-based, non profit, tax-exempt organizations possessing a global employee base. Whereas, Towers Watson, an international consulting firm, assisted the Compensation Committee and the full Board in compiling and analyzing appropriate data as to comparability with respect to compensation for the President and CEO position for ICANN, and recommended a reasonable salary and at-risk compensation range for ICANN's President and CEO. Whereas, both the Compensation Committee and the Board reviewed and considered the comparable compensation data for officer-level positions like the President and CEO position compiled by Towers Watson, as well as the Towers Watson recommendations, which took into account size, geographic considerations, international presence, complexity and other relevant factors. Whereas, upon consideration of all information, including Towers Watson's recommendations, the Board set an at-risk component for Mr. Chehadé's service as President and CEO at $240,000 annually. Whereas, Mr. Atallah served as both ICANN's COO and President and CEO for approximately two and one half months, or 21 percent, of 2012 and did not receive any base compensation during that time for his service as President and CEO. Whereas, under ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and California law, the Board is the authorized body of ICANN vested with the authority to determine whether to pay Mr. Atallah a compensation supplement, and the amount of such a compensation supplement, for his service as ICANN's President and CEO. Whereas, in setting a compensation supplement for Mr. Atallah's service as ICANN's President and CEO, the Board has followed the process set forth in U.S. Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6, which is intended to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to Mr. Atallah for his service as ICANN's President and CEO is reasonable compensation for Federal income tax purposes. Whereas, upon due inquiry of its members, the Board has concluded that no member of the Board has a conflict of interest with respect to the compensation supplement to be paid to Mr. Atallah for his service as ICANN's President and CEO. Whereas, after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the data and recommendations provided by Towers Watson, the Board has concluded that a compensation supplement of $45,000 for Mr. Atallah's service as ICANN's President and CEO is reasonable. Resolved (2012.12.20.22), as follows: 1. It was in the best interests of ICANN to appoint Akram Atallah as the President and CEO of ICANN for a period of time before Fadi Chehadé was available to take his seat as ICANN's President and CEO. 2. It is reasonable to pay to Akram Atallah a compensation supplement of US$45,000 for his additional duties of his service as President and CEO from 1 July 2012 through 13 September 2012. 3. ICANN's President and CEO and its General Counsel are authorized to facilitate payment of $45,000 to Akram Atallah for his service as ICANN's President and CEO.

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 December 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 20 December 2012. If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf section 3.5 "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed to have been approved for posting" on 2 January 2013. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

All, Please see final version of interim letter sent to GAC today. Thanks to all who contributed. Jonathan From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Sent: 23 December 2012 11:22 To: 'GAC Secretariat' Cc: 'Steve Crocker'; 'Fadi Chehade'; 'Heather Dryden'; 'Maria Häll'; 'alice(a)apc.org'; 'Choon Sai LIM (IDA)' Subject: RE: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Dear Heather, Please see attached for an interim response to your letter of 28 November 2012. Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com skype: jonathan.m.r From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@gac.icann.org] Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38 To: jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; alice(a)apc.org; Choon Sai LIM (IDA) Subject: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent protections. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20005 Ph. +1 202 570 7135 M. +1 310 302 7552

1 0

Some comments on the draft initial letter to the GAC
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

2 1

RE: [council] Action item for the SCI
by Neuman, Jeff Dec. 23, 2012

Dec. 23, 2012

Wolf and Joy, I actually do not like the way this is positioned. We should not be asking the question of whether what we did at the meeting on the 20th was in line with the Operating Procedures, but rather should consider the notion separate and apart from the substance of the IOC motion. The question should simply be "should there be any restrictions on resubmitting motions that previously appeared before the Council? If so, what should those restrictions be and are there any exceptions? I think it is that simple. I am not currently on the SCI, but I would like to be involved in this question so I would ask if I can now be included on that mailing list. Thanks. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Sent from iPad. Please excuse any typos. -----Original Message----- From: KnobenW(a)telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Action item for the SCI All, Following the debate on resubmitting a defeated motion to the council, Joy and I drafted the council's request for the SCI (see attached). I've already introduced the item to the SCI, and it has been taken to the SCI's agenda. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

3 2

Action item for the SCI
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Dec. 22, 2012

Dec. 22, 2012

All, Following the debate on resubmitting a defeated motion to the council, Joy and I drafted the council's request for the SCI (see attached). I've already introduced the item to the SCI, and it has been taken to the SCI's agenda. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1

Draft initial letter to the GAC
by Jonathan Robinson Dec. 22, 2012

Dec. 22, 2012

All, As agreed yesterday, I have prepared a draft interim response to the GAC which I would like to send out today. I believe it to be factual and would like to send it out asap and as is if possible. If you have any significant reservations, please let me know. Failing that, I will send it. Thank-you again for a productive meeting yesterday which I felt was conducted very constructively by all who participated. Jonathan

7 7