Minutes | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 7 February 2012

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held on 7 February 2012 at 4:30 pm local time in Los Angeles, California.

Chairman Steve Crocker promptly called the meeting to order.

In addition to the Chair the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Sébastien Bachollet, Cherine Chalaby, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Chris Disspain, Bill Graham, Ray Plzak, R. Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin (Vice Chair), Kuo-Wei Wu and Judith Vazquez.

The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Heather Dryden, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison, Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Thomas Roessler, TLG Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison.

Gonzalo Navarro and Erika Mann sent apologies.

  1. Consent Agenda
  2. Delegation of the .қаз ("kaz") domain representing Kazakhstan in Cyrillic
  3. Public Comment Posting: Further Bylaws Changes for Revised PDP
  4. Reaffirmation of second round of applications in New gTLD Program

  1. Consent Agenda

    The Chair introduced the consent agenda. Ray Plzak requested the removal of the GNSO PDP item to address a wording issue. Sébastien Bachollet requested the removal of the IDN ccTLD delegation item to address a wording question.

    The Chair then called for a vote, and the Board took the following action:

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

    1.1. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting

    Resolved (2012.02.07.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 8 December ICANN Regular Board Meeting.

    1.2. Redelegation of the .BY domain representing Belarus to Reliable Software Inc.

    Whereas, BY is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Belarus;

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the redelegation of .BY to Reliable Software Inc.;

    Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.02), the proposed redelegation of the .BY domain to Reliable Software Inc. is approved.

    Rationale for Resolution 2012.02.07.02

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

    Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting.

    What is the proposal being considered?

    The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

    Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

    In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter.

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

    Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision.

    What significant materials did the Board review?

    The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request.

    What factors the Board found to be significant?

    The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

    Are there positive or negative community impacts?

    The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve.

    Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

    The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

    Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

    For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.

    Resolutions 2012.02.07.01 and 2012.02.07.02 were approved in a single voice vote. Fourteen Board members voted in favor of the resolutions. Erika Mann and Gonzalo Navarro were unavailable to vote on the resolutions. The resolutions carried.

  2. Delegation of the .қаз ("kaz") domain representing Kazakhstan in Cyrillic

    Sébastien Bachollet requested information on the wording used in the resolution regarding the interests of the local and global Internet community and whether there was a need for ICANN to perform that evaluation and use that wording.

    Elise Gerich, VP of the IANA Department, noted that the wording in the resolution matches with the wording used in other delegation items.

    The Chair confirmed that RFC 1591 requires ICANN to consider local community support in the evaluating delegation requests, so that even if the wording was changed, the evauation requirement would stay the same.

    Kuo-Wei Wu noted that we need to be careful in changing the wording used in delegation resolutions and be prepared to explain any change, particular given that we follow RFC 1591.

    The Chair noted his appreciation that the Board may feel that there is more discussion to be had on this point. Given the possibility of unintended consequences if a change is made at this point, the Chair recommended that the wording remains the same and the discussion can be continued at another date. The Chair requested that this issue be included in the Board's tracking process.

    The Chair then called for a vote, and the Board took the following action:

    Whereas, .қаз ("kaz"), encoded as "xn--80ao21a" is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Kazakhstan through the IDN Fast Track process.

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .қаз to the Association of IT companies of Kazakhstan.

    Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet communities.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.03), the proposed delegation of the .қаз domain to the Association of IT companies of Kazakhstan is approved.

    Fourteen Board members voted in favor of Resolution 2012.02.17.03. Erika Mann and Gonzalo Navarro were unavailable to vote on the resolution. The resolution carried.

    Rationale for Resolution 2012.02.07.03

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

    Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special Meeting.

    What is the proposal being considered?

    The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

    Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

    In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation on this matter.

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

    Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's decision.

    What significant materials did the Board review?

    The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects. Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of implementing an approved request.

    What factors the Board found to be significant?

    The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

    Are there positive or negative community impacts?

    The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, and the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve.

    Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

    The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

    Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

    For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.

  3. Public Comment Posting: Further Bylaws Changes for Revised PDP

    Ray Plzak requested modification to the resolution to assure that it referenced the GNSO's needs.

    Without further discussion, the Chair then called for a vote and the Board took the following action:

    Whereas, on 27 September 2011, the GNSO Council adopted the Updated Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/updated-final-report-pdpwt-28sep11.pdf [PDF, 1.51 MB]) of the Policy Development Process Working Team (PDP-WT), setting out a proposed new Annex A to the ICANN Bylaws and a Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual, in fulfilment of a directive to develop a new PDP that is more effective and responsive to the GNSO's needs.

    Whereas, the Board adopted the new Annex A on 8 December 2011 and directed transition to the new PDP.

    Whereas, additional Bylaws revisions are necessary to fully implement the new PDP, including definition of new voting thresholds set out in the PDP-WT Updated Final Report.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.04). the ICANN Board approves the posting for public comment of further revisions to the ICANN Bylaws as necessary for the implementation of the new PDP.

    Fourteen Board members voted in favor of Resolution 2012.02.17.04. Erika Mann and Gonzalo Navarro were unavailable to vote on the resolution. The resolution carried.

    Rationale for Resolution 2012.02.07.04

    The further revision of the ICANN Bylaws is necessary for complete documentation of the transition to the new PDP as approved by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. To assure accountability to the ICANN community, the posting for public comment of the proposed Bylaws changes will allow for community input and transparency into the implementation steps. This action does not have an impact on ICANN’s resources and will not have an impact on the security or stability of the DNS.

  4. Reaffirmation of second round of applications in New gTLD Program

    Prior to the consideration of this item, the following Board members and liaisons identified as having a potential conflict of interest related to the New gTLD Program were excused from the meeting: Sébastien Bachollet, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Steve Crocker, Ram Mohan, Thomas Narten, Bruce Tonkin and Suzanne Woolf.

    The Board confirmed via roll call that the following Directors and Liaisons remained present: Rod Beckstrom, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Heather Dryden, Bill Graham, Ray Plzak, R. Ramaraj, Thomas Roessler, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Judith Vasquez and Kuo-Wei Wu.

    Cherine Chalaby was appointed as Interim Chair, and served in that role for the remainder of the meeting.

    The Interim Chair reviewed the proposed resolution with the Board, noting that the resolution came about after discussion among those Board members that had been identified as not having a conflict relating to the New gTLD Program. There was an opportunity for the Board members to review and comment on the resolution prior to the meeting. The Interim Chair then called for further discussion, if necessary.

    Without further need for discussion, Ray Plzak then moved and Kuo-Wei Wu seconded the following resolution:

    Whereas, the first application window for the New gTLD Program opened on 12 January 2012 and will close on 12 April 2012.

    Whereas, the GNSO policy recommendations accepted by the Board on 26 June 2008 stated that ICANN should introduce new gTLDs in rounds.

    Whereas, in the process of forming the New gTLD Program, ICANN has committed to undertake certain work prior to initiating a second round of an application window for the New gTLD Program.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.05), ICANN is committed to opening a second application window for the New gTLD Program as expeditiously as possible.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.06), the Board directs the CEO to publish a document describing the work plan required prior to initiating a second application window for the New gTLD Program, specifically addressing the GAC requirement for assessment of trademark protections and root zone operation, and identifying other prerequisites to the next round of new gTLDs.

    Resolved (2012.02.07.07), the Board directs the CEO to continue working with the ICANN community to refine the work plan and address the prerequisites needed to open the second round of new gTLDs.

    Rod Beckstrom, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Bill Graham, Ray Plzak, R. Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Judith Vasquez, and Kuo-Wei Wu. directors voted in favor of Resolutions 2012.02.07.05, 2012.02.07.06, and 2012.02.07.07. Sébastien Bachollet, Bertrand de La Chapelle, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Erika Mann and Bruce Tonkin were unavailable to vote on the resolutions. The resolutions carried.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2012.02.07.05 – 2012.02.07.07

    In response to continued calls from the community regarding whether ICANN will proceed with additional rounds of applications for new gTLD applications, the Board takes this action to reaffirm ICANN's commitment to following the GNSO policy recommendations on the introduction of new gTLDs. Those recommendations included that new gTLDs should be introduced in rounds. ICANN has agreed to undertake work and study prior to the opening of another application window, and is working to remain accountable both to the GNSO policy recommendations as well as to the commitments for further work and study. These prerequisites include specifically addressing the GAC requirement for assessment of trademark protections and root zone operation. Though it will not be possible to identify a date certain for the opening of a second round of applications for the New gTLD Program, it is important to provide detail to the community regarding the specific work required.

    The action directed in this resolution will not have any further impact on ICANN resources. In addition, the action required in this resolution will not impact the security or the stability of the DNS. Of course, part of ICANN's continued commitment in monitoring the impact of the introduction of new gTLDs includes the impact on the security and the stability of the DNS.

    After the vote was complete, the General Counsel and Secretary noted that the text of the resolution would be provided to the Board members and liaisons identified as having a potential conflict of interest at the same time that the text of the resolution was provided to the public.

    Ray Plzak requested confirmation that there would be announcement of the resolution and a press release regarding the Board's decision, and sought information on the communications strategy.

    The President and CEO confirmed that the communications team is already coordinating the announcement to be released at the same time as the resolution.

    The meeting was then called to a close.