Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi

Robin Gross robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Sat Mar 13 07:26:21 CET 2010



Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi
12 March 2010

Consent Agenda
1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting
1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting
1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board
1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor
1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group
1.6 Thanks to and dissolution of: Board review Working Group,  
Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the  
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) review Working Group
1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation
President's Report
Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report
New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of  
Expressions of Interest Proposal
New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid  
Suspension System
New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution  
Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights
New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation  
Procedure (RRDRP) – Community
New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement
IDN Variants
New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan
Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support
Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track  
Process
Framework for FY11 Operating Plan
Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM  
Registry v. ICANN
Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010
Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request  
10-1
Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request  
10-1
BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program
Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants
Other Business
Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers
Thanks to Sponsors
Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams
Thanks to Local Hosts
Thanks to Meeting Participants


1. Consent Agenda

Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby  
approved:

1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting

Resolved (2010.03.12.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of  
the 4 February 2010 Board Meeting.

1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting

Resolved (2010.03.12.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of  
the 19 February 2010 Board Meeting.

1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board

Whereas, the Board Committees have reported their activities in  
Nairobi at a public session;

Resolved (2010.03.12.03), reports of the Audit Committee of the  
Board, Board Governance Committee, Finance Committee of the Board,  
IANA Committee of the Board, Public Participation Committee of the  
Board, Risk Committee of the Board and the Structural Improvement  
Committee are received.

1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor

Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws in Article XVI, Section 3 <http:// 
www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm>, requires that after the end of the  
fiscal year, the books of ICANN must be audited by certified public  
accountants. The Bylaws also state that the appointment of the fiscal  
auditors shall be the responsibility of the Board;

Whereas, the Audit Committee of the Board discussed requirements and  
best practices for Audit Partner rotation;

Whereas, the Chair of the Board Audit Committee has received a  
proposal from Moss Adams LLP to be engaged as the auditor for the  
fiscal year ending 30 June 2010, with the proviso that a new Audit  
Partner be assigned to the ICANN engagement; and

Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has reviewed the proposed  
engagement letter and professional services agreement and recommends  
to the Board that ICANN enter into this engagement.

Resolved (2010.03.12.04), the Board authorizes the Chief Executive  
Officer to engage Moss Adams LLP as the auditors for the financial  
statements for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2010.

1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group

Whereas, the Board Review Working Group suggested that the Structural  
Improvements Committee consider a review of the Technical Liaison  
Group (TLG), to complement the review of the ICANN Board of Directors;

Whereas, there are no specific Bylaws provisions for the performance  
of the review of the TLG, as the TLG cannot be identified as a  
Supporting Organization or an Advisory Committee of ICANN, which are  
subject to review according to Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 21 January  
2010 meeting agreed to progress the idea of conducting a review  
focused on the effectiveness of the TLG, and asked staff to present  
proposals for processes to be adopted in order to perform this  
review; and

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 6 March  
2010 meeting considered that due to the relatively low complexity of  
the review, it can be conducted by a specific TLG review Working  
Group, with the assistance of ICANN staff, in a relatively short  
period of time with minimal budget implications.

Resolved (2010.03.12.05), the Board authorizes the review of the  
Technical Liaison Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.06), that this review will aim: (i) to  
understand whether the TLG arrangements set forth in Article XI-A,  
Section 2 of the Bylaws, to ‘connect the Board with appropriate  
sources of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's  
activities,' are still effective and sufficient; (ii) to understand  
whether the TLG has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and  
(iii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is  
desirable to improve the TLG's effectiveness.

Resolved (2010.03.12.07), that the review of the TLG will be  
conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group and assisted by  
ICANN staff.

Resolved (2010.03.12.08), that the SIC is authorized to establish a  
TLG review Working Group and adopt all the necessary measures to  
perform the review, in consultation with the community, and to report  
to the Board through the SIC on the final findings and recommendations.

1.6 Thanks to and dissolution of: Board review Working Group,  
Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the  
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) review Working Group

Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee  
review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group  
have delivered to the Structural Improvements Committee their final  
reports of activity, which contain conclusions and recommendations  
for enhancing the effectiveness of these structures;

Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee  
review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group,  
have fulfilled the tasks assigned to them at the time of their  
establishment, and they can now be dissolved;

Whereas, the Board agrees with the Structural Improvements Committee  
on its proposal to thank the Chairs and Members of these Working  
Groups for their commitment and ability to fulfill the tasks assigned  
to them; and

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee will now provide the  
Board with a set of suggested actions to address the conclusions and  
recommendations of the final reports of these three Working Groups;

Resolved (2010.03.12.09), the Board receives the final reports of the  
Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review  
finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.10), the Board thanks the Chairs and Members of  
these review Working Groups for their commitment and ability to  
fulfill their task:

Board review Working Group: Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Amadeu Abril,  
Steve Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Rita Rodin  
Johnston and Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
NomCom finalization review Working Group: Thomas Roessler (Chair),  
Alejandro Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein and George  
Sadowsky (non-voting).
SSAC review Working Group: Dennis Jennings (Chair), Robert Blokzijl,  
Reinhard Scholl, and Suzanne Woolf.
Resolved (2010.03.12.11), the Board dissolves the Board review  
Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working  
Group and the SSAC review Working Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.12), the Board directs the Structural  
Improvements Committee to present a set of suggested actions for  
approval at the June 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the  
conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final reports of  
these Working Groups.

1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation

Whereas, the Board has determined that existing GNSO Constituencies  
should regularly re-confirm their status as organizations operating  
consistently with the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency,  
openness, fairness and representativeness;

Whereas, the Board asked existing GNSO Constituencies to seek Board  
reconfirmation prior to the Nairobi meeting; and

Whereas, the GNSO Council Work Team developing recommendations for  
GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholders is still progressing in its  
work, and completion of those efforts will likely produce final  
charters that are much more effective in linking GNSO-structure  
operations to the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, fairness,  
openness and representativeness.

Resolved (2010.03.12.13), the Board extends the timetable for those  
reconfirmation submissions to the ICANN International meeting in  
Brussels, Belgium.

2. President's Report

(For discussion only.)

3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report

(For discussion only.)

4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of  
Expressions of Interest Proposal

Whereas the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN  
staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal “expressions  
of interest”, and provide a plan for Board consideration in December  
2009, including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a  
proposed action;

Whereas ICANN staff presented an analysis of the potential benefits  
of an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and developed a  
preliminary EOI process model for ICANN Board discussion;

Whereas, the ICANN Board consideration of the model was deferred  
until the Nairobi meeting to encourage full debate on aspects of the  
proposed EOI model, consistent with advice from the GAC in its letter  
to ICANN dated 26 January 2010;

Whereas ICANN staff has received substantial public comment on the  
EOI proposal, including two public comment sessions and at the public  
forum at the 37 th International Meeting in Nairobi, with thoughtful  
and substantial contributions regarding proceeding with an EOI and  
the proposed form of the EOI, raising concerns both in support of an  
in opposition to proceeding with the EOI;

Whereas, on 10 March 2010 the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)  
issued the “GAC Communiqué – Nairobi” questioning the benefits of  
pursuing further a separate EOI as it could distract attention and  
resources from finalizing the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, the Board has carefully considered all public comments  
received on the EOI;

Whereas, the Board has determined that the potential benefits of  
proceeding with an EOI were outweighed by the costs of potential  
delay to the New gTLD Program, the lack of certainty about the date  
when the overarching issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of  
the Board, the consequential difficulty of synchronizing the launch  
of the New gTLD Program with the proposed EOI, and preferring to  
focus staff resources on resolving the remaining issues; and

Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in  
the New gTLD Program continue to progress.

Resolved (2010.03.12.14) the Board withdraws the Expressions of  
Interest proposal from consideration.

Resolved (2010.03.12.15) the Board directs the CEO to continue to  
work towards the launch of the New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2010.03.12.16) the Board thanks the community for all of  
its work on the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the  
collaborative community work to initiate the Board's consideration of  
the proposal.

5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration

Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of  
the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of  
data, and more;

Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry  
participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices  
related to ownership integration or non-integration;\

Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to  
emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry  
structure could affect consumer data protection;

Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the  
issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create  
an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the  
new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and

Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry- 
registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.

Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process,  
there will be strict separation of entities offering registry  
services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be  
allowed.

Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the  
GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD  
program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as  
part of the New gTLD Program.

6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform  
Rapid Suspension System

Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that trademark  
protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD  
Program, the Board called for the creation of a community-lead  
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop rights protection  
mechanisms;

Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP Clearinghouse and a  
Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) that were subject to public  
comment;

Whereas, the Board asked the Generic Names Supporting Organization  
(GNSO) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposals to determine  
whether they are consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the  
introduction of new gTLDs, and appropriate and effective options for  
achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives;

Whereas, the GNSO established the Special Trademark Issue Review Team  
(STI) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposal in response to the  
Board's request;

Whereas the GNSO's STI developed endorsements and revisions for the  
Clearinghouse and URS, which the GNSO unanimously approved and then  
posted for public comment;

Whereas ICANN considered public comment and revised the Clearinghouse  
and URS proposals to reflect the GNSO-STI model, making few  
adjustments in keeping with public comment received on the GNSO-STI  
proposal;

Whereas, the Board believes that the current proposals reflect the  
very thoughtful public comments received and the tireless good work  
conducted by both the IRT and the GNSO-STI; and

Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the  
Board supports the substantive content of the Clearinghouse and URS  
proposals that were posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment and  
expects that they will be included in version 4 of the Draft  
Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.19), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments  
on the Clearinghouse proposal and develop a final version to be  
included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.20), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments  
on the URS proposal and develop a final version to be included in  
version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.21), the Board greatly appreciates all of the  
hard work conducted by the IRT, and more recently by the GNSO-STI, as  
well as the public in assisting ICANN with the development of both  
the Clearinghouse and URS proposals in the furtherance of trademark  
protection.

7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution  
Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights

Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that Trademark  
Protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD  
Program, the Board called for the creation of an Implementation  
Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop some rights protection mechanisms;

Whereas, the IRT's work included a proposal for a Post Delegation  
Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP), that was posted for public  
comment to provide an additional rights protection mechanism in the  
new gTLD process;

Whereas, ICANN considered public comment, revised the PDDRP, and the  
Board directed that it be included in version 3 of the Applicant  
Guidebook; and

Whereas, the Board approves the concept of a PDDRP, which should be  
included in the New gTLD Program as another avenue of trademark  
protection; in light of additional public comments received, ICANN  
further revised the PDDRP, which is currently posted for another  
round of public comments.

Resolved (2010.03.12.22), ICANN should take the remaining public  
comment from the community and synthesize those comments, as  
appropriate, into a final draft PDDRP, ensuring that the varying  
interests of the community are considered, and include the final  
draft in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.23), the Board greatly appreciates the  
cooperation, involvement and assistance the community has provided  
and continues to offer to assist in developing a robust and  
productive PDDRP as another trademark protection mechanism within the  
New gTLD Program and looks forward to this collaboration with the  
community producing further improvements.

8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute  
Delegation Procedure (RRDRP) – Community

Whereas, the New gTLD recommendations from the GNSO included an  
implementation guideline that suggested that "a claim to support a  
community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that  
application";

Whereas, based on the GNSO's recommendation, staff has developed a  
string contention resolution process that can in some cases grant  
priority to an applicant endorsed by a delineated and substantial  
community with a strong nexus to the applied-for string, so long as  
the applicant agrees to implement and enforce registration  
restrictions in the gTLD;

Whereas, a community-based gTLD's registration restrictions could  
include not only restrictions on who can register in a gTLD, but also  
name selection, content and use rules consistent with the articulated  
community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD;

Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider  
would allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding  
enforcement of community restrictions; and

Whereas, the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure  
(RRDRP) was published for public comment on 31 May 2009 < http:// 
icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm >, along with an  
explanatory memorandum < http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/ 
rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf > describing the procedure and the rationale for  
incorporating it into the New gTLD Program. The draft procedure has  
received little public comment since, and no comment indicating that  
it should not be implemented.

Resolved (2010.03.12.24), ICANN shall publish a final draft version  
of the RRDRP in Draft Applicant Guidebook 4.

Resolved (2010.03.12.25), ICANN shall also consider whether this or a  
similar post-delegation dispute resolution procedure could be  
implemented for use by government-supported TLD operators where the  
government withdraws its support of the TLD.

9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement

Whereas public comment has indicated that the requirement for gTLD  
strings to be at least three characters would limit the utility of  
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) gTLDs in some regions of the world;

Whereas, the GNSO IDN Working Group previously recommended that  
applications for fewer than 3-character gTLDs were allowed in the  
gTLD program, based on a case-by-case evaluation;

Whereas an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as  
a result of discussion during the meeting in Sydney, Australia, to  
assist in implementation of a set of rules that could be employed to  
allocate IDN strings of fewer than three characters where appropriate;

Whereas, the team completed its work and published a recommendation  
for relaxing the three-character requirement in a report for public  
comment that included specific requirements for when 2-character  
gTLDs can be delegated, and deferred the notion of 1-character gTLDs  
pending policy issues;

Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received; and

Whereas, a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the  
New gTLD Program has also been posted for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.26), ICANN shall take into account remaining  
public comments on the proposed model and develop a final proposal to  
be included in draft version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the  
Board supports the substantive content of the model that was posted  
on 15 February 2010 for public comment and expects that it will be  
included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.27), ICANN thanks those members of the community  
who have devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of  
trademark rights protection.

10. IDN Variants

Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are  
affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs;

Whereas, an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as  
a result of discussions at the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, to  
make recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level;

Whereas, the IDN Implementation Support Team has completed its work  
and published its recommendations in a report for public comment and  
recommends that ICANN is to study the usability of the DNAME resource  
record as part of a supported mechanism for managing TLD strings  
containing variants;

Whereas the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is  
consistent with the Team's recommendations;

Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN  
Implementation Support Team for allocation/reservation of desired  
variant TLDs, pending identification of a mechanism for delegation  
and management of the variant TLDs in the New gTLD Program, has been  
posted for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.28), ICANN shall take into account remaining  
public comments on the proposed model and based on such comments  
develop a proposal to be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant  
Guidebook;.

Resolved (2010.03.12.29), the Board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake  
a study on the usability of the DNAME resource record as a part of a  
supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants.

Resolved (2010.03.12.30), ICANN thanks those members of the community  
who have devoted their time and energy to the work on these issues,  
and urges the community to collaborate on the ongoing testing of  
variant mechanisms.

11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan

Whereas, New gTLD Program communications activities began in June  
2008 with the policy approval during ICANN's Meeting in Paris;

Whereas, staff has provided regular program updates to the community  
and Board, has continued to publish critical information in six  
languages, and has responded to public comments in a timely and  
transparent way;

Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan < http:// 
www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09- 
en.pdf > that supports the New gTLD Program implementation plan and  
considers a full range of global audiences;

Whereas, ICANN recognizes that the communications plan is a living  
document, and should be flexible to accommodate evolving  
circumstances and attend to the needs of specific regions and  
audiences around the world;

Whereas, ICANN recognizes that one of the main goals of the  
communications plan is to inform potential applicants around the  
world about the opportunities afforded by new gTLDs; and

Whereas, the Board has listened to the community input about  
intensifying communications activities in various regions around the  
world.

Resolved (2010.03.12.31), that ICANN will implement a formal launch  
of communications activities for the New gTLD Program, tailored  
according to the relevant program phases and developments,  
recognizing that the plan will need to be flexible to respond to  
unforeseen circumstances and adapt to the needs of regional audiences.

Resolved (2010.03.12.32), that ICANN will continue to take into  
account the advice of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory  
committees in the New gTLD Program communication activities. Starting  
at ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels, ICANN will work  
with the SOs and ACs to leverage the networks and design the timeline  
around the actual launch.

Resolved (2010.03.12.33), the CEO is directed to begin the formal  
communications plan for the New gTLD Program when the overarching  
issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the Board.

12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support

Whereas, on 16 November 2009 ICANN launched the IDN Fast Track  
process pursuant to the Board's resolution on 30 October 2009;

Whereas, in the implementation of the process, staff has identified  
an issue relating to instances in the Fast Track Process where more  
than one official language or script exists within a country/ 
territory, and where requests are for multiple corresponding strings  
that are considered equivalent, so that users of the community  
accessing domains under all versions of the string expect that each  
of them will resolve to the same address;

Whereas, the Board requested Ram Mohan and Harald Alvestrand to  
establish a Working Group as a matter of urgency to address this  
topic, and invite interested Board members to participate.

Resolved (2010.03.12.34), that an Equivalent Strings Support Board  
Working Group (ES-WG) is established to review the issues, develop a  
recommendation of a framework for resolution and principles to guide  
staff implementation of the framework, and remain available for  
consultation during staff's implementation work.

Resolved (2010.03.12.35), that the Working Group is comprised as  
follows: Dennis Jennings, Chair; Harald Alvestrand; Rod Beckstrom;  
Steve Crocker; Rita Rodin Johnston; Ram Mohan; Thomas Narten, Jean- 
Jacques Subrenat and Suzanne Woolf.

Resolved (2010.03.12.36), that the Working Group's mandate will end  
at the conclusion of the Board's 2010 Annual General Meeting.

13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast  
Track Process

Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process on 16  
November 2009 as set forth in the Board resolution of 30 October 2009;

Whereas, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in Sydney,  
Board members convened the Implementation Support Team to provide  
recommendations on how to manage IDN ccTLD strings;

Whereas, the Fast Track Final Implementation Plan states that the  
limitation on the number of IDN ccTLDs is one per official language  
or script per country, and defines the policy under which requests  
are processed;

Whereas, the Board, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in  
Nairobi, requested Harald Alvestrand and Ram Mohan to convene a  
working group, the Equivalent Strings Support Working Group (ES-WG)  
to address instances in the Fast Track Process where more than one  
official language or script exists within a country/territory, and  
where requests are for multiple corresponding strings that are  
considered equivalent, so that users of the community accessing  
domains under all versions of the string expect that each of them  
will resolve to the same address (hereafter referred to as  
“Synchronized IDN ccTLDs”).

Whereas, the ES-WG determined that developing a formal procedure to  
accept IDN ccTLD Fast Track requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD  
strings is appropriate and solves a real problem for the people in  
the community ICANN is seeking to serve by launching IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, there appears to be general community consensus, and the ES- 
WG concurs, that any request for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must  
solve a significant problem for the communities that use the scripts,  
to be confirmed with sufficient due diligence by Staff, the details  
to be defined in an ES Implementation Plan;

Whereas, the ES-WG notes that all existing Fast Track requirements  
and rules apply for string selection and validation of the  
synchronized IDN ccTLD strings, and that DNS security and stability,  
as well as usability concerns, must be taken into account;

Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that requests for synchronized IDN  
ccTLD strings must be accompanied by adequate and verifiable  
procedures to enable convergence at every level of the domain named  
by the TLD following criteria established in the ES Implementation  
Plan, and to take immediate steps to remove any divergence should it  
occur; and

Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that if an improved technical standard  
for the delegation and management of Synchronized IDN ccTLDs is  
arrived at, and is applicable for such delegations, IDN ccTLD  
managers should migrate to that standard in a safe, stable and timely  
manner.

Resolved (2010.03.12.37), that pursuant to the ES-WG recommendations,  
the Board approves the principles identified above for the evaluation  
of synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process.

Resolved (2010.03.12.38), the CEO is directed to have prepared an ES  
Implementation Plan for the Fast Track evaluation of synchronized IDN  
ccTLDs using the ES-WG's principles as a framework.

14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan

(For discussion only.)

15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM  
Registry v. ICANN

Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM  
Registry, Inc. filed an application for an Independent Review  
challenging ICANN's denial of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;

Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;

Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was  
constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting  
out their respective positions on the matter;

Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held  
in Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and  
witness testimony;

Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority  
Declaration with findings;

Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's  
Bylaws, "[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the  
IRP Panel Declaration at the Board's next meeting";

Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration  
throughout the week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed  
various paths toward conclusion; and

Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years  
following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes  
to create a transparent set of process options which can be published  
for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent  
Review Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws  
requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible  
paths regarding ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD.

Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General  
Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further  
consideration.

Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General  
Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM  
matter for public comment within 14 days, which will enable the  
community to provide input on the Board processes. The report will be  
posted for public comment for no less than 45 days, which will enable  
the Board to consider the possible process options no later than  
ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels.

16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010

Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2010 in the  
Latin America region;

Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as  
host for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;

Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals  
received; and

Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board  
approve the budget for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting as  
proposed on 6 March 2010, without reference to a specific location.

Resolved (2010.03.12.42), the CEO is authorized to negotiate with  
those that submitted proposals to host the ICANN 2010 Latin America  
International Meeting, and make a recommendation to the Board for  
approval at an upcoming ICANN Board meeting.

17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration  
Request 10-1

Resolved (2010.03.12.43) the Board accepts the determination of the  
BGC in response to the Reconsideration Request that the preliminary  
report was posted less than ten (10) hours later than the time  
required by the Bylaws.

18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration  
Request 10-1

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) presented a  
recommendation in response to Reconsideration Request 10-1,  
recommending a change to the Bylaws calling for posting the Board  
approved resolutions within two (2) business days after the  
conclusion of each Board meeting and the preliminary report within  
seven (7) business days after the conclusion of each Board meeting; and

Whereas, the ICANN Board has considered the BGC's recommendation, and  
has determined that providing for earlier public access to the  
resolutions would be beneficial and is in keeping with ICANN's  
practices relating to accountability and transparency.

Resolved (2010.03.12.44), the ICANN Board hereby adopts the  
recommendation of the Board Governance Committee in relation to the  
timing of posting preliminary reports and agrees that providing  
earlier public access to resolutions is an advancement in ICANN's  
practices relating to accountability and transparency.

19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program

Whereas, the skills of Board members are critical to enable the ICANN  
Board to function effectively in the complex ICANN environment;

Whereas, Board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and  
experiences;

Whereas, the Board is committed to the appropriate support for  
director training and development of Board member skills;

Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge  
Board members need to be effective in their roles as Board members;

Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for Board  
members has been positive; and

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee at the request of the Board  
has assessed the training environment for Board members and  
recommends that the Board approve this resolution.

Resolved (2010.03.12.45), the CEO is directed to develop a  
comprehensive Board Training Program that: identifies the skills and  
knowledge that individuals need, to be effective board members;  
produces training materials in a variety of media; is conducted  
according to a regular schedule; evaluates the effectiveness of the  
training; and adjusts the programs to meet the changing Board needs  
and the ICANN environment, and to report back to the Board on  
implementation issues, including costing, no later than ICANN's 2010  
Annual General Meeting.

20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants

Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental  
change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation;

Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on  
relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of  
discussion and analysis;

Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and  
opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and  
registrants;

Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive,  
along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;

Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD  
applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and

Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed  
concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that  
these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially  
those from developing countries.

Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an  
inclusive New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work  
through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a  
sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring  
assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs .

21. Other Business

[TBD]

22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers

Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and  
skills which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN  
process;

Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to  
acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of  
service end; and

Whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council  
expire after the Nairobi meeting:

Oscar Alejandro Robles-Garay, .mx - Oscar has been a ccNSO Councillor  
ever since the first ccNSO Council in 2004
Oscar Moreno, .pr – Oscar joined the ccNSO Council in 2007
Resolved, Oscar Robles and Oscar Moreno have earned the deep  
appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board  
wishes them well in all future endeavours.

23. Thanks to Sponsors

The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:

Ministry of Information and Communications; Communciations Commission  
of Kenya – CCK, Afilias Limited, NeuStar, Inc., .CO, VeriSign, Inc.,  
GMO Registry, Inc., InterNetX, China Internet Network Information  
Center (CNNIC), AfriNIC, Public Interest Registry, China  
Organizational Name Administration Center, .PRO, dotMobi, RU-CENTER,  
Nairobi Net Online, Kenya ICT Board, TESPOK (Telecommunication  
Service Providers Association), Safaricom, Zain, Internet Solution,  
Access Kenya Seacom, UUNET.

Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTANet (Kenya ICT  
Action Network) and Jamii Tours – Shuttle Buses.

24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams

The Board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, the  
interpreters, and to the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in  
facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting.

The Board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLan Events  
Services, Inc. Special thanks are also given to Steve Morgan, Kris  
Van Der Plas for their audiovisual support. Paul Bevan, Audio  
Engineer, and Ted Bartles, Technical Director and Josh Baulch,  
Technical Support, Yvonne Asonga and Aitec Africa.

The Board would also like to thank the Kenyatta International  
Conference Centre and all the event staff for their support, as well  
the Sarova Stanley, Fairmont The Norfolk and the Laico Regency hotels.

25. Thanks to Local Hosts

The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer,  
Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC) for their support.

Special thanks to:

Honorable Samuel Pogishio – Minister of Information and  
Communication, Kenya

Dr. Bitange Ndemo - Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Information and  
Communication, Kenya

Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK

Abraham Ondeng - Ministry of Information and Communication/Local  
Organizing Committee

Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee

Joe Kiragu - .KE Administrator - KENIC/Local Organizing Committee

Alice Munyua - CCK Board/KENIC Board/Local Organizing Committee

Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee

Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP

Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP

Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee

Stephen Munguti - Security Committee

Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee

Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board

26. Thanks to Meeting Participants

Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of  
participants at the meetings; and

Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog  
at this meeting;

Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100312/d368d4b3/attachment.html>


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list