May 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board meeting resolutions 6 May 2012
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm 1. Consent Agenda<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1> o 1. Ratification of Global Policy Proposal From ASO for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.01<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 2. .CAT RSEP Request to Allow Whois Changes<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.02<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 3. Compensation Committee Charter<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.03<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 4. Overall Compensation Framework<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.04<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 5. IRTP Part B, Recommendation 8<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.05<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 6. APPROVAL OF STRATEGIC PLAN<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.06<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> o 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVIEW<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> § Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.07<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> 2. MAIN AGENDA<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#2> o 1. RATIFICATION OF DECISIONS OF CONFLICTS & ETHICS SUBCOMMITEE<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#2…> § Rationale for Resolutions 2012.05.06.08 - 2012.05.06.09<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#2…> o 2. UPDATE OF NEW GTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#2…> § Rationale for Resolutions 2012.05.06.10 - 2012.05.06.11<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#2…> 1. Consent Agenda Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are approved: 1. Ratification of Global Policy Proposal From ASO for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA Whereas, the last five unicast IPv4 /8s were allocated to the five RIRs in accordance with Global Policy on 3 February 2011. Whereas, there is currently no policy mechanism for redistributing IPv4 address space between RIRs. Whereas, the addressing community has developed and reached consensus on a policy proposal allowing returned IPv4 address space to be shared equally between all five RIR regions. Whereas, the Board on 21 April 2011 resolved to request ICANN staff to track the development of this policy proposal in background reports and such reports have been submitted regularly. Whereas, on 13 March 2012, the ASO Address Council submitted the policy proposal to ICANN Board for ratification. Whereas, the proposal was published for public comments from 14 March 2012 until 4 April 2012, during which time no comments were submitted. Resolved (2012.05.06.01), that the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA is ratified in line with clause 9 of Attachment A to the 2004 ASO MoU. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.01 The proposed action is intended to ratify a policy proposal that has achieved consensus in all five addressing communities and to enable implementation of the policy by ICANN in performing the IANA functions. The action to be taken does not entail any budgetary consequences in and of itself, nor any potential negative effects. It is important to take this action now to respect the 60-day window for Board decision stipulated in the ASO MoU. 2. .CAT RSEP Request to Allow Whois Changes Whereas, PuntCAT submitted a Request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .CAT Registry Agreement to allow for Whois changes to comply with Spanish and EU data protection legislation. Whereas, ICANN evaluated the proposed amendment to the .CAT 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 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm) Whereas, the potential issues cited during the public comment period and by ICANN were addressed by PuntCAT's responses. Whereas, approving the proposal would prevent puntCAT domain registrants who are individuals to have their contact information from appearing in the puntCAT Whois when their domains are queried. In contrast, registrants representing businesses are not supposed to have this option, i.e. they are obliged to publish their contact information in the Whois. RESOLVED (2012.05.06.02), the amendment to allow Whois changes in .CAT is approved, and the President and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendment. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.02 ICANN's stakeholder relations, legal, and technical teams reviewed the RSEP proposal for competition and DNS stability issues and found none. According to the Registry, this service is endorsed by law enforcement and data protection agencies representatives from Catalonia, Spain and the EU, as indicated in the RSEP annexes. puntCAT notes that the GAC communiqué issued on March the 28th, 2007 states the following: "2.2 The GAC recognizes that there are also legitimate concerns about...conflicts with national laws and regulations, in particular, applicable privacy and data protection laws" (http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_28_Lisbon_Communique.pdf) ICANN held a public comment period from 20 January 2012 to 10 February 2012. During this time, the puntCAT proposal received four comments, three in support and one, from IPC, in opposition. The summary of the comments is available below. Fundacio PuntCAT has conducted consultations with relevant data protection agencies representatives from Catalonia, Spain and the EU, as well as informal consultations with experts on the subject. The relevant authorities named by puntCAT are: the Art. 29 Working Group; the independent EU Advisory Body on Data Protection and Privacy; the Spanish Data protection Authority; and Catalan Data Protection Authority. Per Fundació puntCAT, this request is the direct consequence of an increase in data protection concerns in the .cat community. The concerns have been directly addressed to Fundació puntCAT throughout many registrants' petitions to allow private whois, as well as a general trend in the data protection fora that have specifically dealt with the subject. In that regard, see the documents referred above. Registrars were consulted and informed in a meeting held on April 14th, 2011, between puntCAT and its registrars. The meeting had the whois system change proposal as one of its main topics, and none of the registrars attending the meeting had any objections to the proposal. The proposed amendment was submitted for public comment support and one in opposition from the IPC. In its reply to IPC concerns, the PuntCAT registry continues to affirm that the proposed changes are in alignment with how the data protection framework must be interpreted when addressing the challenges posed by the Whois system. It also states that "the language used by the Spanish data protection Agency is, in our understanding, clear enough to proceed with the changes as proposed. puntCAT believes it would be a severe irresponsibility not to allow us to proceed with the changes. Delaying or, even worse, preventing puntCAT from abiding by the data protection regulation would put the Registry in a very risky legal situation, from which serious economic liabilities could derive." In the past, ICANN received and, after public comment, approved a similar request from Telnic Ltd, the .tel registry. See: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/index.html#2007004. Telnic is similarly situated, i.e., subject to European privacy law. 3. Compensation Committee Charter Whereas, the Compensation Committee is currently operating under a Charter approved in 2005, available at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/compensation/charter. Whereas, as part of the Compensation Committee's obligation to review its operations and make appropriate recommendations for updates or enhancements, on 4 May 2012 the Compensation Committee recommended that its Charter be revised to better reflect the Committee's current operations. The revised Charter also incorporates 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 (2012.05.06.03), the revised Charter of the Compensation Committee is approved. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.03 Approving the revised Compensation Committee charter at this time makes sense as the revised version better reflects the current operations of the Committee than the prior version, which was approved in 2005. The Charter also now conforms to all other committee charters. In developing the revised Charter both best practices as well as the actual operations of ICANN's Compensation Committee were reviewed and considered significant to approve the revised charter. The approval of the revised Compensation Committee Charter should have a positive public effect in that it increases the accountability and transparency of the organization and aligns with the Committee's current activities and best practices. There is no financial impact on ICANN or the community by revising the Compensation Committee Charter. Confirmation of the Compensation Committee's mandate through revision to its Charter does not present any impact on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the domain names system. 4. Overall Compensation Framework Whereas, the retention of high calibre staff is essential to ICANN's operations and ICANN desires to ensure competitive compensation for staff. Whereas, ICANN's current Compensation Framework establishes a target of compensation for staff between the 50th and 75th percentile of comparable for profit organizations. Whereas, independent compensation expert consultant Towers Watson has recommended that ICANN's Compensation Framework be updated to also include review of comparable compensation of staff from not for profit organizations and high technology organizations. Whereas, the compensation expert consultant's recommendation is consistent with ICANN's current compensation practices and goals. Whereas, the Compensation Committee evaluated and agrees with the compensation consultant's recommendation. Resolved (2012.05.06.04), the Board adopts the updated Compensation Framework recommended by the independent expert compensation consultant and instructs staff to implement it consistent with ICANN's compensation practices. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.04 ICANN's compensation philosophy is to ensure that remuneration provided to staff is competitive globally and that it engenders the appropriate motivation for high performance toward agreed objectives. Specifically, as stated in ICANN's Compensation Practices previously approved by the Board (see http://www.icann.org/en/financials/compensation-practices-31jan10-en.pdf [PDF, 91 KB]), ICANN maintains a "[c]ommitment to continued payment in the salary span of 50th to 75th percentile of relevant comparable companies of a similar size and complexity to ICANN, with the actual salary within this band determined by the individual's experience and talent and market position." This Framework, which was initially based on a 2006 survey by outside compensation experts, included comparable for-profit entities. In order to ensure best practices in staff compensation, the Compensation Committee called for a review of the Compensation Framework established in 2006. ICANN's independent compensation expert consultant, Towers Watson (TW), has conducted a thorough analysis of ICANN's existing Compensation Framework. TW advised that the comparable organizations ICANN uses in setting staff compensation be updated to include, not only general for profit organizations, but also not for profit and high technology organizations. Including all three "buckets' of comparable organizations has been recommended to ensure that ICANN is using the right mix and of comparables in setting staff compensation levels. Making this change provides additional transparency to ICANN's compensation practices and improves the precision of the market comparables. As part of its mandate, the Compensation Committee evaluated the consultant's recommendation and has endorsed the adopting of the updated Compensation Framework. Doing so will have likely some financial impact on ICANN, but any such impact will be budgeted for as part of ICANN's regular budgeting activities. This action is not anticipated to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. 5. IRTP Part B, Recommendation 8 Whereas on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Procedure Part B (IRTP Part B) addressing five charter questions, set forth at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtpb/3.+WG+Charter. Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011. Whereas the IRTP Part B Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined in the Charter. Whereas in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal concerning standardizing and clarifying Whois status messages relating to Registrar Lock Status, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation 8). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council would consider whether to approve the recommendation. Whereas ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm) Whereas comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was updated accordingly for GNSO Council consideration. Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and unanimously adopted the recommendation and proposal at its meeting on 16 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201202) Whereas the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required voting threshold to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties. Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a 21-day public comment period was held on the approved recommendation, and the comments have been summarized and considered (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-irtp-b-rec8-16a… [PDF, 340 KB]). Resolved (2012.05.06.05), 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 (2012.05.06.xx), the CEO is to develop and complete an implementation plan for these Recommendations and continue communication with the community on such work. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.05 Why is this issue addressed now? The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy that was adopted in 2004 which provides for a straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names between registrars. The GNSO Council established a series of five Working Groups (Parts A through E) to review and consider various revisions to this policy. The IRTP Part B PDP is the second in a series of five scheduled PDPs addressing areas for improvements in the existing policy. The IRTP Part B Working Group has addressed five issues focusing on domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name, and lock status. Most of these recommendations have already been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. In relation to recommendation #8, a proposal from staff was requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a public comment forum on the Staff Proposal<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm>, ICANN Staff submitted its proposal to the GNSO Council. Following this, additional comments<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html> were submitted by the Intellectual Property Constituency. The GNSO Council reviewed the comments and the updated staff proposal<http://gnso.icann.org-mailing-lists-archives-council-msg12600.html>, which was submitted addressing the comments<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html> provided by the IPC. The GNSO Council approved IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and the updated staff proposal unanimously at its meeting on 16 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201202) The IRTP Part B PDP Final Report received unanimous consensus support from the IRTP Part B Working Group as well as the GNSO Council. What is the proposal being put forward for Board consideration? Recommendation #8 recommends standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status. The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Based on discussions with technical experts, the IRTP Part B WG does not expect that such a standardization and clarification of WHOIS status messages would require significant investment or changes at the registry/registrar level. The IRTP Part B WG recommended that ICANN staff is asked to develop an implementation plan for community consideration which ensures that a technically feasible approach is developed to implement this recommendation. The ICANN Staff proposal agrees that the standardization and clarification of WHOIS status messages does not require significant investment or changes at the registry/registrar level. As outlined in the IRTP Part B Final Report, it is possible to associate each EPP status value with a message that explains the meaning of the respective status value. Registrars would be required to display a link to information on each status code directly next to the status in the output, for example: "Status: ClientLock http://www.internic.net/status/html/clientlock". This link would then direct to an ICANN controlled web page where the relevant status code information as described in the 'EPP Status Codes, what do they mean and why should I know?' 1<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#f…> is posted. ICANN will also post translations of the status information. The web page can make use of localization information from the browser the user is using to display the web page in the related language. The requirement for registries and registrars to provide this link and ensure uniformity in the message displayed could be implemented as a standalone 'WHOIS Status Information Policy' or as an addition to the IRTP. In order to avoid potential blocking or stripping out of URLs from WHOIS output for valid reasons, registrars would be required to not remove Internic.net hyperlinks (or particularly the Internic.net status hyperlink) from their WHOIS output. In addition to the link, registrars would be required to include in the WHOIS output a note that would state "For more information on WHOIS status codes, please visit Internic.net" where the link to the information would be posted. Outreach conducted by the Working Group to solicit views of groups that are likely to be impacted: Public comment forums were held by the Working Group on the initiation of the PDP<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b>, the Initial Report<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/>, the proposed Final Report<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-proposed-final-report/> and the Staff Proposal on Recommendation #8<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm> in additional to regular updates to the GNSO Council as well as workshops to inform and solicit the input from the ICANN Community at ICANN meetings (see for example, Brussels Meeting<http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12502> and San Francisco Meeting<http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22083>). Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements were submitted (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtpb/IRTP+Part+B) All comments received were reviewed and considered by the IRTP Part B PDP WG (see section 6 of the IRTP Part B Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 972 KB]). In addition, as prescribed by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec8-21feb12-en.htm> was held on the recommendations to be considered by the ICANN Board. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? Following the closing of the public comment forum on the staff proposal (no comments received) and the submission of the proposal to the GNSO Council, the Intellectual Property Constituency submitted a number of comments<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html>, which ICANN staff responded to<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html> by submitting an updated proposal<http://gnso.icann.org-mailing-lists-archives-council-msg12600.html>. The comments and updated proposal were considered as part of the GNSO Council deliberations. Subsequently, the GNSO Council adopted<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201202> the recommendation and updated ICANN Staff proposal unanimously. Following the adoption by the GNSO Council, another public comment forum<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-b-rec8-21feb12-en.htm> was opened on the recommendation and staff proposal. Two comments were received, but these comments did not require changes to the recommendation and/or staff proposal in the opinion of ICANN Staff (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-irtp-b-rec8-16a… [PDF, 340 KB]). What significant materials did the PDP Working Group and GNSO Council review outlining the support and/or opposition to the proposed recommendations? The materials and input reviewed by the IRTP Part B PDP Working Group are outlined in the IRTP Part B Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 972 KB], which also outlines the full consensus support of the IRTP Part B Working Group for this recommendation. In addition to the regular updates as described above, the GNSO Council reviewed this Final Report and the ICANN Staff proposal, as well as the comments submitted by the IPC and Staff's response to those comments. What factors the GNSO Council found to be significant? The recommendation was developed by the IRTP Part B Working Group following the GNSO Policy Development Process as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and has received the unanimous support from the GNSO Council. As outlined in the ICANN Bylaws, the Council's unanimous (supermajority) support for the motion obligates the Board to adopt the recommendation unless by a vote of more than 66%, the Board determines that the policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. In addition, transfer related issues are the number one area of complaint according to data from ICANN Compliance. Improvements to the IRTP have the potential to reduce the number of complaints, in addition to providing clarity and predictability to registrants as well as registrars. Are there positive or negative community impacts? Improvements to the IRTP have the potential to reduce the number of complaints, in addition to providing clarity and predictability to registrants as well as registrars. Adoption of the recommendations will require changes in processes for registrars, but these are considered to have a minimum impact and necessary in order to address the issues that are part of this Policy Development Process. The recommendations, if implemented, would usefully clarify and enhance the IRTP, to the advantage of all parties concerned. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? Apart from those changes required in process for registrars as outlined above, no other fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN; the community; and/or the public are expected. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? There are no security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if the Board approves the proposed recommendations. 6. APPROVAL OF STRATEGIC PLAN Resolved (2012.05.06.06), the Board approves the July 2012-June 2015 Strategic Plan, and directs the President and CEO to move forward with the Internationalization survey and community-based operational planning process based on the strategic objectives as set forth in the plan. The aspects of the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan that cover the expansion of ICANN's international presence and engagement efforts are deferred pending further direction from the Board. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.06 To remain accountable to the global Internet community, the Board is taking this action to allow for community input on the further planning for ICANN's international presence and engagement. There has been a community survey on these items, and a paper will be produced that will be the subject of public comment and discussion. In addition, continued work towards these efforts as set forth in the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan is not prudent, therefore those portions of the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan are deferred. After review of these inputs, and as appropriate to respond to inputs, initiatives to expand ICANN's international presence and engagement may be updated within the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan, and included within the 2012-2013 Operating Plan. In order to allow for the 2012-2013 operational planning cycle to proceed, the Board approves the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan. While there will likely be a fiscal impact as a result of this work, the fiscal impact of undertaking the survey and review process is minimal. Further, the deferral of current initiatives within the 2011-2012 Operating Plan regarding the further allocation or reallocation of staff and resources that relate to ICANN's international presence and engagement prior to the Prague Meeting will preserve resources from having to be reallocated as necessary after this review is complete. This action is not expected to have any impact on the security or the stability of the DNS. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVIEW Whereas, one stage of ICANN's three-stage review of its conflicts of interest and ethics regimes called for outside counsel that is familiar with ICANN, Jones Day, to perform a holistic review of ICANN's documented corporate governance policies and practices to make recommendations of how they can be approved. Whereas, Jones Day recommended modifications to the Conflicts of Interest Policy, Code of Conduct and Expected Standards of Behavior in order to promote superior ethics, integrity and transparency into ICANN's deliberative processes. Whereas, Jones Day also recommended the adoption of Corporate Governance Guidelines that provide a consolidated source of reference to ICANN's governance policies and practices. Whereas, these four documents were posted for public comment, all of which were considered, and minor revisions were made to the Conflicts of Interest Policy and Code of Conduct to address those comments. Whereas, the review of ICANN's conflicts and ethics practices is still underway, and further recommended changes to these documents may be identified as part of these reviews. Whereas, the Board is committed to continue making improvements and enhancements to all of its conflicts and ethics practices and documentation, and recognizes that these documents may be further revised when further recommendations are made and accepted. Resolved (2012.05.06.07), the Board adopts the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy, revised Code of Conduct and revised Expected Standards of Behavior, as well as the new Corporate Governance Guidelines. Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.07 Adopting the Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy, Code of Conduct and Expected Standards of Behavior, as well as the new Corporate Governance Guidelines is another step in ICANN's enhancements to its conflicts of interest and ethics practices. As announced in October 2011, ICANN is undertaking a three-part review of these practices, and the continued enhancements of the documented policies and practices is just one way to demonstrate ICANN's commitment to ensuring the legitimacy and sustainability of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. The adoption of these documents does not represent and end to the conflicts and ethics review work; it is expected that each of these documents are to be seen as evolving, and subject to change pending the needs of the ICANN community. In addition, the continued work to review the conflicts and ethics practices may necessitate further revision, or the adoption of additional documents as necessary. With the adoption of these documents, ICANN recognizes that demonstrating adherence to these guidelines, policies and codes is an essential part of a commitment to enhance the organization's conflicts and ethics practices. Having strong documents are only a single part of the equation; it is now up to the Board and the ICANN community as a whole to meet the heightened practices set out therein in order to start putting the enhancements into action. In response to the public comment received on these documents, ICANN has already incorporated a specific change to reflect individual Board member obligations to be free of conflicts that may impair ICANN's ability to operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. Other comments, such as a request for documentation to be in less legalistic language, are under consideration. Taking this action is expected to positively impact the ICANN community through the adoption of heightened practices to address and mitigate the potential for conflicts of interest in ICANN decision-making. While these changes are to be viewed as steps in the process of an ongoing review of conflicts and ethics practices, it is important to adopt incremental changes as feasible. The adoption of these guidelines and policy revisions is not expected to have a fiscal impact on ICANN, nor is this expected to have any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system. 2. MAIN AGENDA: 1. RATIFICATION OF DECISIONS OF CONFLICTS & ETHICS SUBCOMMITEE Whereas, ICANN is committed to attaining the highest ethical standard to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model. Whereas, ICANN's current corporate governance documents, as set out at http://www.icann.org/en/documents/governance/, include a Conflicts of Interest Policy and Board Code of Conduct (including ethical guidelines and confidentiality provisions). Whereas, on 8 December 2011, the Board adopted specific, heightened conflicts of interest requirements to apply to the New gTLD Program, in furtherance of ICANN's commitment to demonstrating that it will treat decisions approving any new gTLD application in an ethical manner and with care to avoid even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Whereas, pursuant to its charter, the Board Governance Committee (the "BGC") is responsible for the administration of the Conflicts of Interest Policy. Whereas, the BGC has established a subcommittee on ethics and conflicts (the "Subcommittee"), comprised of Directors who are not conflicted on new gTLDs, or who have a conflict on new gTLDs and have mitigated that conflict, for the purpose of assessing conflicts of interest of all Board members (including Directors and Liaisons). The Subcommittee reviewed all Board member statements of interest to evaluate whether there are any potential or actual conflicts of interest in relation to the New gTLD Program. Whereas, at the Board's February 2012 workshop in Los Angeles, California, the Subcommittee completed its initial identification of Board members (including liaisons) with potential or actual conflicts of interest in relation to the New gTLD Program. Whereas, each Director or Liaison so identified has had the opportunity to discuss the facts and circumstances that resulted in the identification of the potential or actual conflict of interest prior to a final determination being made by the Subcommittee. Whereas, the Subcommittee has completed its determination regarding each Director or Liaison regarding the existence of a potential or actual conflict of interest in relation to the New gTLD Program, including (where applicable) potential steps towards mitigation to permit such Board members to participate in Board discussions and deliberations regarding the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2012.05.06.08), the Board ratifies and adopts the Subcommittee's determinations regarding Directors and Liaisons with potential or actual conflicts of interest as it relates to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2012.05.06.09), if deliberations relating to the New gTLD Program call for expertise and experience about the industry operations, or any other matters, that could be provided by any of the Directors or Liaisons who have been determined by the Subcommittee to have potential or actual conflicts of interests as it relates to the New gTLD Program, such Board members or Liaisons can be asked to participate in the limited discussion requiring such expertise and experience. Independent experts could be similarly invited to participate in the deliberations. If such expertise is sought, the nature of the discussion and the expert will be identified in the meeting minutes or notes, as applicable. Rationale for Resolutions 2012.05.06.08 - 2012.05.06.09 Over the past several months, ICANN has placed a strong emphasis on the need for enhancing ICANN's policies relating to conflicts of interest, ethics, confidentiality and an overall code of conduct. During the Singapore meeting, the President and CEO identified such issues as crucial given that the New gTLD Program was entering into a new phase with Board approval, which was taken on 20 June 2011. In addition, the community has been calling for a thorough review of these policies. Accordingly, ICANN has determined that it should strive to achieve a highest standards in both the documentation of polices and the adherence to polices relating to conflicts of interest ethics, confidentiality and code of conduct. Part of ICANN's commitment to this standard is demonstrated through its rigorous application of its Conflicts of Interest policy through the institution of a Subcommittee of the Board Governance Committee, comprised solely of Independent Directors and focused on the application of ethics and conflicts policies and practices. Here, the Subcommittee's determination of which directors and liaisons have potential or actual conflicts of interest in relation to the New gTLD Program, and the Board's acceptance of those determinations, help ICANN remain accountable to the community and their expectations that ICANN's deliberations and decision making is not affected by individual conflicts of interest. The increased attention and review on this subject is expected to have a positive effect on ICANN and the community. There is no financial impact to the organization as a result of this decision, and this decision will not have any impact on the security or the stability of the DNS. 2. UPDATE OF NEW GTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Whereas, on 10 April 2012 the Board created the New gTLD Program Committee, to which it delegated all legal and decision making authority of the Board relating to the New gTLD Program (for the round of the Program, which commenced in January 2012 and for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round) as set forth in its Charter, which excludes those things that the Board is prohibited from delegating by law, or pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. Whereas, Thomas Narten has been determined by the Board Governance Committee's Subcommittee for Conflicts & Ethics to have mitigated the previously-identified conflict of interest with respect to the New gTLD Program, and that determination has been accepted by the Board. Resolved (2012.05.06.10), Thomas Narten is hereby approved as a non-voting Liaison member of the New gTLD Program Committee. Resolved (2012.05.06.11), all members of the New gTLD Program Committee reinforce their commitment to the 8 December 2011 Resolution of the Board (Resolution 2011.12.08.19) regarding Board member conflicts, and specifying in part: "Any and all Board members who approve any new gTLD application shall not take a contracted or employment position with any company sponsoring or in any way involved with that new gTLD for 12 months after the Board made the decision on the application." Rationale for Resolutions 2012.05.06.10 - 2012.05.06.11 The Board reaffirms its Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.01-2012.04.10.04, stating in full: In order to have efficient meetings and take appropriate actions with respect to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook, the Board decided to create the "New gTLD Program Committee" in accordance with Article XII of the Bylaws and has delegated decision making authority to the Committee as it relates to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program which commenced in January 2012 and for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round. Establishing this new Committee without conflicted members, and delegating to it decision making authority, will provide some distinct advantages. First, it will eliminate any uncertainty for conflict Board members with respect to attendance at Board meetings and workshops since the New gTLD Program topics can be dealt with at the Committee level. Second, it will allow for actions to be taken without a meeting by the committee. As the Board is aware, actions without a meeting cannot be taken unless done via electronic submission by unanimous consent; such unanimous consent cannot be achieved if just one Board member is conflicted. Third, it will provide the community with a transparent view into the Board's commitment to dealing with actual, potential or perceived conflicts. This resolution should have a positive impact on the community and ICANN as a whole as the New gTLD Program Committee will be able to take actions relating to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook without any question of conflict arising. No fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of this action and there will be no impact on the security, stability no resiliency of the domain name system. ________________________________ 1<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#n…> The IRTP Part B Working Group, with the support of ICANN Staff developed this document, which provides an overview of EPP Status Codes and what they mean (see Annex F of the IRTP Part B Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 972 KB] - EPP Status Codes, what do they mean and why should I know?) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Update - GNSO Council agenda 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

Dear Councillors, With regard to Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 8.1 WG update from Staff (Steve Sheng) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slid… The update is posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: Updated GNSO Council Agenda 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

Dear All, Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 10 May 2012 at 15:00 UTC. (Other times may be found at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeti…) Three items have been added to Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 9.1 Discussion on recent Board announcement to alter ICANN meeting Friday schedule. 9.2 Discussion on ALAC proposal for ICANN Academy. 9.3 URS update in draft budget - should the Council write to the Board to request that it be involved? (intro from Staff). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen The agenda is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-10may12-en.htm the Wiki agenda (for the latest updates) is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Meetin… The motion before Council is posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf> For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Times 15:00 UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Council+meting+&is…> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 12 April 2012 approved on 30 April 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-12apr12-en.htm 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf> * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes) Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. Refer to motion 1[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+20… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: Update on the new PDP (10 minutes) In December 2011, the ICANN Board adopted, on the recommendation of the GNSO Council, the revised GNSO Policy Development Process. This session is to introduce the revised GNSO PDP and explain its new features in detail. Introduction to Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/intro-revised-gnso-pdp-14mar12-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/intro-revised-gnso-pdp-14mar12-en.pdf> 4.1 Update (Marika Konings) 4.2 Discussion Item 5: International Olympics Committee /Red Cross Names Drafting Team (IOC/RC DT) (15 minutes) On September 14, 2011, the GAC submitted a proposal to the GNSO Council to protect IOC and RC marks at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. At its March 26 meeting, the GNSO Council approved the IOC/RC DT's recommendations (see resolution passed by the Council here http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1<https://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#20120326-1>). However, these recommendations did not contain any proposals with regard to the protection of these marks at the second level. On April 10, 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee and granted it all of the powers of the Board to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The Committee met on 10 April 2012 and resolved not to update the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at this time (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr…) On April 12, 2012, the GNSO Council approved a motion requesting an Issue Report on protection of names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new gTLDs. In the light of both the Board decision and the decision by the Council to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms at the top and second level for all new gTLDs , this discussion item aims to determine whether the Council should (i) continue the IOC/RC DT to recommend a complete response to the GAC proposal at the second level, (ii) disband the IOC/RC DT and prepare a response to the GAC proposal on its own, (iii) disband the IOC/RC DT until the potential new PDP progresses and delay any response to the GAC, or (iv) whether new instructions should be given to the DT. 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Next Steps Item 6: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group( JAS WG) (15 minutes) This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG so that next steps for the group can be determined. 6.1 WG update from Staff (Kurt Pritz) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements - The WHOIS Access recommendation (5 minutes) The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. This agenda item is to determine what next steps, if any, should be planned for this project item. 7.1 Update from Staff/ISP (Marika Konings, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps Item 8: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data WG (10 minutes) The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 8.1 WG update from Staff (Steve Sheng) 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 9.1 Discussion on recent Board announcement to alter ICANN meeting Friday schedule. 9.2 Discussion on ALAC proposal for ICANN Academy. 9.3 URS update in draft budget - should the Council write to the Board to request that it be involved? (intro from Staff). Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. 4. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. 5. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. 6. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. 7. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. 8. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. 9. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, 10. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. 11. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. 12. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<https://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. 1. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); 2. Approve a PDP recommendation; 3. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+0DST 03:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (8 May 2012)
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

TAS Interruption - Update (8 May 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 8 May 2012 ICANN is targeting 22 May 2012 as the intended reopening date for the TLD Application System. It is anticipated that the system would remain open for five business days and close on 30 May. This takes account of the 28 May Memorial Day holiday in the United States. We took TAS offline following a technical glitch that may have allowed some users to see some file names and user names of other users. We have seen no evidence that any TAS user intentionally did anything wrong in order to be able to see other users' information. We have met our commitment to provide notice to all users on or before 8 May 2012 by sending out notifications today. The large majority of users are unaffected by the glitch. We continue to review the extensive database of system logs and system traffic, and any new and relevant information that emerges from this analysis will be shared with applicants in a timely way. Even as late as yesterday, 7 May 2012, our packet-level research uncovered a new set of instances (in addition to those previously announced) where another applicant might have viewed a set of system-generated file names. It is possible that further analysis will also show that some of the parties that we have notified were not affected, but notice was provided out of an abundance of caution. We thank everyone for your patience and apologize for the inconvenience the delay has caused. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TR: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#92]
by Glen de Saint Géry May 9, 2012

May 9, 2012

FYI De : ICANN [mailto:no-reply@wufoo.com] Envoyé : mardi 8 mai 2012 23:38 À : gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org Objet : GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form [#92] Name of Officer: * Robin Gross Officer Email Address: * robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> Date Prepared: * Tuesday, May 8, 2012 GNSO Organization: * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: * NCSG Chair Voting Remedy: * Proxy Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: * Joy Liddicoat is unable to attend the 10 May 2012 GNSO Council Meeting and provides her proxy to William Drake Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: * All Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] * Friday, May 11, 2012 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. * Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). * Yes Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: * William Drake

1 0

RE: [council] New Friday schedule
by john＠crediblecontext.com May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Stephane, Certainly, Steve's note (and the earlier one from Bruce) are indeed "thoughtful," but the notion that we can be comfortable with the subjective standard of "Once in while there are Board actions that have some content and even a bit of drama...we will have a public Board meeting" stretches credulity with regard to the community. I think we can say we have not heard the last of this in as much as we have not yet heard the first of it. Talk to you later in the week. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] New Friday schedule From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Fri, May 04, 2012 8:49 am To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Councillors, On the subject of the new Friday schedule, please see below a response from Steve to a comment I made as part of the discussion around this on the ICANN Chairs' list. I asked Steve if it was OK to share his response with the Council and he agreed. IMO, this response adds a lot of context to our possible discussions on the matter. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> Objet : Rép : SO and AC plenary time at ICANN meetings Date : 4 mai 2012 14:49:44 HAEC À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc : Stéphane, Thanks for your thoughtful note. We're gathering inputs, getting the Prague meeting organized and will be sending at least one additional note to the community to cover these items. The Friday Board meetings had been very lightly attended and didn't really provide either insight on the Board's thinking or opportunity for the community to interact with the Board. The other parts of the Friday schedule, reports from the Board committees and reports from the SO and AC chairs do provide a little bit of room for interaction, mostly around the SO and AC chair reports. I think that's something we want to make sure continues in some fashion, and we will weave this into the overall schedule. We will also allocate time for interaction with the Board during the Thursday afternoon session. Once in while there are Board actions that have some content and even a bit of drama. The XXX decision in San Francisco and the decision in Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program are the two recent examples that come to mind. For matters of this import, we will have a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did this at the beginning of the week. This was a big improvement and really helped set a positive tone for the entire week. I think this is a good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. Another element in our thinking is that it's usually inappropriate to rush through a resolution at the end of the week based on developments during the week. We need to take some time to develop the proper documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the week off with resolutions passed on the basis of the week's work, we will report on what's come up during the week, what happened between the last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we plan to do following this ICANN meeting. I look forward to inputs from you and the other chairs of the SOs and ACs. Finally, we'll work hard to get this right by Prague, but if what we do in Prague is not good enough, we'll keep working on it. Thanks, Steve On May 4, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: Chris, My two cents on this. I think the Board is right in moving towards decisions of this kind without necessarily going through the time consuming and work heavy process of a public consultation. For things to get done in an organization such as ICANN, the body placed in charge of that organization much enjoy some element of trust from the community to take decisions like these. However, for that trust to be well deserved, the Board must also be able to listen to feedback from the community and act on it promptly. In this case, I am hearing very clear messages that there needs to be some kind of interaction between the Board and the community in a formal setting such as the one that was provided by the Friday Board meeting. I feel it is therefore crucial for the Board sessions planned on Thursday to act as effective replacements to the now defunct Friday Board meeting in that regard. I also think the Board must actively address the loss-of-transparency issues that this Friday program change has raised. I for one will be watching very carefully in Prague to see if the new Thursday sessions live up to the community's Board transparency requirements. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT

1 0

Regarding improvements in Board processes
by Bruce Tonkin May 6, 2012

May 6, 2012

Hello All, I have been reading the various comments about the announcement on 30 April 2012 that there will not be a public board meeting on Friday 29 June in Prague. I thought I would set out various improvements being made in Board processes to set this in context. (1) In the past, the Board has typically worked with staff until midnight, and in some cases 2am, on the Thursday before the public session to prepare resolutions for voting. This is after a busy week listening to feedback from the community, and the end result is often Board resolutions that are poorly crafted and create problems in future. (2) For Prague, the intent is that the Board will focus on listening to the community, and then give the community some idea of what future resolutions will be voted on in response to feedback. A board meeting will then be held shortly after Prague to approve those resolutions. (3) An example of this approach was on the topic of Conflicts of interest in Dakar in October 2011. The Board listened to the community during the week, and then in the public session on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to the community on specific measures that would be taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful review by the legal team, and review by Board members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 - where a resolution was passed on managing conflicts for new gTLDs, along with other resolutions that resulted from the discussions in Dakar. (4) The Board has also been working to ensure that most resolutions at the Board level are relatively routine. This means that bodies like the GNSO have already reached consensus on a topic (e.g the recent work on the transfers policy), or staff have managed a public comment process on a topic - and there are no controversies associated with the matter. For such routine resolutions - we either have a short teleconference or we take advantage of face-to-face time at a Board workshop to pass these resolutions. For example, at the Board workshop just concluded in Amsterdam we had a short Board meeting to pass mostly consent resolutions. It is likely that in Prague we will pass resolutions on routine matters in the Board workshop on the weekend of 23/24 June - if there are matters submitted by staff for approval - and can report on them during the public meetings. If there are controversies on a matter, the general approach would be to seek to return the matter to the relevant body or bodies to reach a stronger consensus. Thus you will see fewer matters that are not on the consent agenda at Board meetings. (5) Where there is a major policy vote, or where there are differing views on a major policy, the Board will continue to schedule such discussions for the public meetings. Past examples of such matters include the .xxx decision and the approval of the new gTLD program in Singapore in June 2011. (6) With respect to transparency. the Board has been publishing rationales for each of its decisions - including those on the consent agenda. There are also detailed minutes of meetings, where contributions from Board members made during a Board meeting are captured. For example, from the minutes of the meeting on 8 Dec 2011 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-08dec11-en.htm) there is a detailed record of the discussion on conflicts as well as on batching. (7) We are still refining improvements and certainly welcome feedback from the community. Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions or concerns, and certainly feel free to provide feedback to the Board in the Board/GNSO meeting in Prague. Also be aware that I continue to read emails on this list, and I pass on examples of emails that raise concerns about Board processes to the Board list to keep the Board aware as well. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan
by Glen de Saint Géry May 6, 2012

May 6, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm> Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 4 May 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): The purpose of this project is to resolve many of the issues necessary to delegate variant TLDs. The first IDN Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two phases of the project have been completed with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the project is now entering its next phase. ICANN created a program plan for next steps, posted it for public comment, and presented it in a session at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Based on the comments received to date, the project plan has been updated, and the team is seeking input on the revised plan during this public comment period. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program… Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012)
by Glen de Saint Géry May 6, 2012

May 6, 2012

TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 4 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, held 2091 applications - either submitted or in progress - when it was taken offline on 12 April 2012. In addition, there are 214 potential applications that were registered prior to the 29 March cut-off date, but whose payments have not yet been received or reconciled. ICANN has received approximately USD $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs. As we have reported, we are in the process of notifying applicants whether they were affected by the software glitch, and plan to complete this process on or before Tuesday, 8 May. Shortly after that process is complete, we will announce the schedule for reopening TAS and completing the application period. Once the system is reopened, we will keep it open for at least five business days. We appreciate your understanding as we work to bring the TLD application system back online. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New Friday schedule
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Councillors, On the subject of the new Friday schedule, please see below a response from Steve to a comment I made as part of the discussion around this on the ICANN Chairs' list. I asked Steve if it was OK to share his response with the Council and he agreed. IMO, this response adds a lot of context to our possible discussions on the matter. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Objet : Rép : SO and AC plenary time at ICANN meetings > Date : 4 mai 2012 14:49:44 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : > > Stéphane, > > Thanks for your thoughtful note. We're gathering inputs, getting the Prague meeting organized and will be sending at least one additional note to the community to cover these items. > > The Friday Board meetings had been very lightly attended and didn't really provide either insight on the Board's thinking or opportunity for the community to interact with the Board. The other parts of the Friday schedule, reports from the Board committees and reports from the SO and AC chairs do provide a little bit of room for interaction, mostly around the SO and AC chair reports. I think that's something we want to make sure continues in some fashion, and we will weave this into the overall schedule. We will also allocate time for interaction with the Board during the Thursday afternoon session. > > Once in while there are Board actions that have some content and even a bit of drama. The XXX decision in San Francisco and the decision in Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program are the two recent examples that come to mind. For matters of this import, we will have a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did this at the beginning of the week. This was a big improvement and really helped set a positive tone for the entire week. I think this is a good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. > > Another element in our thinking is that it's usually inappropriate to rush through a resolution at the end of the week based on developments during the week. We need to take some time to develop the proper documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the week off with resolutions passed on the basis of the week's work, we will report on what's come up during the week, what happened between the last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we plan to do following this ICANN meeting. > > I look forward to inputs from you and the other chairs of the SOs and ACs. > > Finally, we'll work hard to get this right by Prague, but if what we do in Prague is not good enough, we'll keep working on it. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > > On May 4, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> Chris, >> >> My two cents on this. >> >> I think the Board is right in moving towards decisions of this kind without necessarily going through the time consuming and work heavy process of a public consultation. For things to get done in an organization such as ICANN, the body placed in charge of that organization much enjoy some element of trust from the community to take decisions like these. >> >> However, for that trust to be well deserved, the Board must also be able to listen to feedback from the community and act on it promptly. In this case, I am hearing very clear messages that there needs to be some kind of interaction between the Board and the community in a formal setting such as the one that was provided by the Friday Board meeting. I feel it is therefore crucial for the Board sessions planned on Thursday to act as effective replacements to the now defunct Friday Board meeting in that regard. >> >> I also think the Board must actively address the loss-of-transparency issues that this Friday program change has raised. I for one will be watching very carefully in Prague to see if the new Thursday sessions live up to the community's Board transparency requirements. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stéphane Van Gelder >> Directeur Général / General manager >> INDOM Group NBT France >> ---------------- >> Head of Domain Operations >> Group NBT >>

1 0