Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Adopted Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the Board of Directors

21 April 2011

*Note: Where available, draft Rationale of the Board's actions is presented under the associated Resolution. The draft Rationale is not final until approved with the minutes of the Board meeting.

  1. Confidential Personnel Matter – Executive Session
  2. Consent Agenda
  3. From the BFC - Approval of Increase Of The Registrar Accreditation Application Fee
  4. From the SIC – Approval of Charter for Board Technical Relations Working Group
  5. Review of Vertical Integration for Existing gTLD Registry Operators
  6. ATRT
  7. IDN ccTLD DELEGATIONS

 

  1. Confidential Personnel Matter – Executive Session

    In Executive Session, the Board passed two related resolutions (2011.04.21.C01, 2011.04.21.C02) that shall remain confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws.

  2. Consent Agenda

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

    2.1. Approval of Minutes of 18 March 2011 ICANN Board Meeting

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 18 March 2011 ICANN Board Meeting.

    2.2. From the BGC – Organizational Meeting to Fill Leadership Vacancies

    Whereas, upon the conclusion of the June 2011 Mid-year Meeting in Singapore, there will be a vacancy in the position of the Chair of the Board due to the transition in Seat 11 on the ICANN Board of Directors.

    Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has identified that it is preferable for the Board to immediately fill a vacancy in the ICANN Board Chair position, as well as immediately address any necessary changes in composition of Board Committees and leadership due to the transition of Board members, and is prepared make recommendations to the Board on these items.

    Whereas, an Organizational Meeting of the Board is required as soon as possible after the conclusion of the June 2011 Mid-year Meeting for the Board to take action to elect a Chair (and Vice-Chair, if necessary), as well as appointing Board committee members as needed.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.02), the Secretary is directed to notice an Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors to occur immediately after the conclusion of the June 2011 Mid-year Meeting.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.02:

    This administrative resolution assures that the Board will continue with a full composition of leadership upon transition of Board membership. There is no anticipated fiscal impact from this decision, as the Organizational Meeting will occur in the same location as the 2011 Mid-year Meeting. There will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the doman name system as a result of this action.

    2.3. From the BGC – Revised Code of Conduct

    Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) is charged with oversight of the Board's compliance with the organization's Code of Conduct, approved in 2008.

    Whereas, the BGC has identified that Code of Conduct Guidelines would provide guidance and assistance in maintaining compliance with the Code of Conduct.

    Whereas, non-substantive revisions to the Code of Conduct are necessary to incorporate references to the Code of Conduct Guidelines, and the BGC has approved those proposed revisions.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.03), the Board approves the Revised Code of Conduct and directs staff to post the Revised Code of Conduct on the ICANN website.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.03:

    The Board's adherence to a Code of Conduct is an essential part of maintaining accountability and transparency in ICANN's decision-making process. The Code of Conduct approved in 2008 was a result of community input, and the changes approved today do not substantively alter the community-vetted provisions. The Revised Code of Conduct will assist the Board in maintaining adherence with the Code of Conduct, through the incorporation of Guidelines that more clearly identify processes for handling potential breaches of the Code. There is no anticipated fiscal impact from this decision, and there will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

    2.4. From the BGC – Input on Academia Representation on NomCom

    Whereas, Article VII, Section 2.8.c of the ICANN Bylaws requires the NomCom to include a voting member selected by "an entity designated by the Board to represent academic and similar organizations" (Selecting Entity).

    Whereas, despite attempts to identify a Selecting Entity, the Board has not succeeded, and instead has made direct recommendations of delegates to represent academia on the NomCom. In addition to the Board-selected delegate, there have consistently been multiple delegates on each NomCom from academia.

    Whereas, in 2010, the Board directed the BGC to create a process for identifying a Selecting Entity, and the BGC has raised concerns relating to the identification and evaluation of the Selecting Entity.

    Whereas, the BGC has determined that the community may provide guidance on an appropriate Selecting Entity or metrics to help in identification or evaluation of the Selecting Entity.

    Whereas, in the event that that the community comment does not inform the identification or approval of an appropriate Selecting Entity, the BGC is prepared to recommend that Article VII, Section 2.8.c be removed from the Bylaws. If, in the future the academic sector becomes under-represented on the NomCom, the creation of a mechanism should be considered to assure that academia has a voice in the selection of ICANN leadership.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.04), the Board approves the initiation of a 30-day period of public comment to obtain community input to inform the BGC's future work on the identification of an entity to make appointments to the NomCom as called for in Article VII, Section 2.8.c of the Bylaws. The public comment will also address the potential proposed Bylaws amendments regarding the removal of this Bylaws provision in the event that the community comment process does not result in the identification of an appropriate entity.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.04:

    Since the 2002 introduction of the current form of the ICANN Bylaws, there has been a provision for the NomCom to include a voting delegate appointed by "an entity designated by the Board to represent academic and similar organizations" (Selecting Entity). The Board has not been successful in identifying such a Selecting Entity; despite a 2003 identification of a Selecting Entity, by 2005, no designees had been identified and the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has been making a direct recommendation of a voting NomCom delegate after soliciting nominees. In 2007, the Chair noted that the BGC had not been successful in identifying a Selecting Entity, and in 2010, the Board directed that a process for choosing the Selecting Entity be created through the BGC and proposed to the Board.

    Despite the limitations faced by the Board in identifying the Selecting Entity, there has been consistent representation of the academic sector on each NomCom, in addition to those persons directly recommended by the BGC. Historically, in addition to the designated academia delegate, each recent NomCom has had at least two members affiliated with academic institutions.

    The NomCom – and the method of selection of delegates serving on the NomCom – are important components to ICANN's leadership and governance, and providing any entity with the responsibility of selecting a voting NomCom delegate will have lasting effects on the organization. When the BGC undertook work to create a process to identify a Selecting Entity, the BGC discussed the difficulty of identifying criteria to choose an entity, particularly how to evaluate and select the successful entity if more than one is suggested or nominated. The BGC also identified a more fundamental question: because of the history of academic voices being present on the NomCom, does it remain necessary to identify that a specific delegate remain a part of the NomCom composition?

    The BGC therefore recommends that the community have a voice in reviewing this decision point. The BGC seeks community guidance on: What entities could or should serve as the entity to designate a member of an academic or similar organization to the NomCom? What metrics could be used to evaluate competing entities? What would an appropriate selection and evaluation process be? Would the community be better served by removing the Bylaws provision calling for such an entity to select a delegate?

    It should be noted that the Board directed that the BGC not to identify a delegate for the current (2010-2011) NomCom to fill this role. To date, ICANN is not aware of any complaints that the absence of the specific academia representative delegate has impeded the work of the NomCom.

    In the event that the community consultation cannot identify an appropriate selection or evaluation process, or an appropriate entity, the BGC will recommend the removal of this provision from the Bylaws. If the provision is removed, the future composition of the NomCom will have to be reviewed to confirm that the academic sector remains represented. If the academic sector is under-represented in the future, a review of how best to assure academic representation on the NomCom will be initiated.

    Seeking community input on this item will assist the Board in evaluating the impact of any changes to the NomCom composition. There will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

    2.5. From the BGC – Approval of Members of Board Technical Relations Working Group

    Whereas, on 18 March 2011 the Board established the Board Technical Relations Working Group "to consider measures to enhance the coordination and cooperation between ICANN and other members of the Internet technical community with the intent of, among other things, dissolving the TLG by the 2011 Annual Meeting; and asks the Working Group to engage the ICANN community in a fully consultative process on the coordination and cooperation between ICANN and other members of the Internet technical community."

    Whereas, the Board directed the Board Governance Committee to recommend five members for the Board Technical Relations Working Group, for consideration by the Board at this meeting.

    Whereas, at its 12 April 2011 meeting, the BGC reviewed the potential composition of the Board Technical Relations Working Group and formed a recommendation to the Board, identifying the following proposed members of the group:

    (i) Gonzalo Navarro, Chair;

    (ii) Thomas Narten;

    (iii) Thomas Roessler;

    (iv) Reinhard Scholl; and

    (v) Jonne Soininen.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.05), the Board approves the recommended membership of the Board Technical Relations Working Group and requests the members to complete the tasks as set forth in the Board's 18 March 2011 resolution, as reflected in the Working Group's charter.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTIONS 2011.04.21.05:

    The Board Governance Committee's recommendation is in fulfillment of the Board's 18 March 2011 resolution. The TLG review work to date has been the subject of community comment, and the Working Group is expected to perform its work in a consultative process with the ICANN community. A small fiscal impact is anticipated due to the composition of the Working Group, including staffing resources and potential costs incurred to facilitate the work of the Working Group. There will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

    2.6. From the SIC – Approval of ccNSO Review Implementation Actions

    Whereas, on 18 March 2011, the Board resolved to receive the Final Report of the ccNSO review Working Group, and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to "present a set of suggested actions for approval at the 24 June 2011 Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final report of this Working Group", at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#2.f.

    Whereas, ICANN staff members supporting the organizational reviews and the ccNSO identified a set of measures in a document "ccNSO review WG final report: implementation steps", dated April 2011, to address the recommendations and conclusions from the Working Group and provided those to the SIC.

    Whereas, the SIC finds the measures included in this document adequate and proposes to have staff in coordination with SIC finalize an implementation plan, including estimated costs, based upon this document, and to provide this final plan to the Board for receipt and consideration.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.06), the Board approves the document put forward by the SIC and instructs the SIC, in coordination with staff, to provide the Board with a final implementation plan, including estimated costs, to conform with the measures recommended by the SIC to address the conclusions and recommendations in the final report of the ccNSO review Working Group.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.06:

    The proposed action is in direct response to a request from the Board and serves to advance the implementation of the ccNSO review outcomes. The task to develop a detailed implementation plan is essential to prepare the implementation in a timely manner. There is no reason to delay this action as it, per se, would have no budgetary consequences. The detailed implementation planning should cover scoping and resource estimates, to be considered and decided by the Board once the detailed planning task has been accomplished and a detailed plan put forward.

    2.7. From the BFC – Formalization of Planning Committee for existing employee retirement savings accounts (401K)

    Whereas, the ICANN Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) was introduced in 2000 for United States based staff.

    Whereas, in light of the increasing number of participants and resulting assets of the Plan, best practices suggest that a plan committee be formed to manage plan administration, choosing plan vendors, identifying investment options from which employees can select, and other fiduciary responsibilities.

    Whereas, the BFC has recommended that the Board approve the formalization of the 401(k) Plan Committee and authorize the CEO to staff and oversee the Plan Committee activities.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.07), the Board approves the formalization of the 401(k) Plan Committee and authorizes the CEO to staff and oversee the Plan Committee activities.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.07:

    Employees in the United States participate in the ICANN Retirement Savings Plan (also known as the 401(k) Plan) (the "Plan") in which the Company makes contributions to the Plan on behalf of employees, and employees may make contributions, on a tax deferred basis, to the Plan on their own behalf. Until recently, the Plan has been relatively small and did not call for a formal Plan Committee. Recently, however, the Plan has grown to over 100 active participants and to an asset level for which best practices indicate that a plan committee be formed to oversee various aspects of the Plan.

    2.8. Approval of Redelegation of .KP (Korea, Democratic People's Republic)

    Whereas, KP is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .KP to Star Joint Venture Company;

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

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.08), the proposed redelegation of the .KP domain to Star Joint Venture Company is approved.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.08:

    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.

    2.9. Approval of Tracking of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA

    Whereas, the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO Address Council in Accordance with the ASO MoU, states that "When, in accordance with step 1 in the Global Policy Development Process of the ASO MoU (Attachment A, article 1), ICANN staff liaising with the addressing community becomes aware of a global policy development within the scope of the ASO MoU, ICANN staff informs the ICANN Board of this development. The Board decides, as and when appropriate, that this development should be followed by ICANN staff and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose. ICANN staff so assigned shall inform all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, shall establish an ICANN web page to be kept up to date and shall compile a background report to be kept up to date on this global policy development. This background report shall be provided to the Board as requested.".

    Whereas, ICANN staff has informed the Board that a policy proposal entitled " Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA " is in development and that this Proposal has entered the first adoption steps within the individual RIRs as well as being recognized by the ASO Address Council as a valid Global Policy Proposal.

    Whereas, the Proposal is identified as a global policy development within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the ASO.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.09), the Board requests that the development of the policy proposal entitled "Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA" be followed by ICANN staff in line with the Board's Review Procedures for such policy proposals and instructs the ICANN CEO to assign staff for this purpose.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.09:

    The Global Policy Proposal has reached the discussion stage in all Regional Internet Registries and the time is ripe to start producing and posting Background Reports on the Proposal's status. Directing staff to conduct the required tracking work is in furtherance of ICANN's obligations under the MoU with the ASO and the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource Policies.

    There will be a nominal budgetary impact when directing staff to track the Proposal, as ICANN staff is already allocated to the ASO, and the tracking of proposals at this stage require limited staff effort. If approved, future implementation may pose additional impacts on the budget, public and security/stability related issues, but those are not ripe for assessment at this time. Requiring staff tracking at this stage will also allow for advance preparation of a future request from the ASO for ratification of the Proposal.

Main Agenda

  1. From the BFC – Approval of Increase Of The Registrar Accreditation Application Fee

    Potential Conflicts of Interest (as identified by the General Counsel):
    Bruce Tonkin – for details, see posted Sumary of Statements of Interest - http://www.icann.org/en/board/summary-soi-16mar11-en.htm.

    Whereas, in resolution 01.65 the Board approved the charging of an accreditation application fee of USD 2500, without regard to the number of top-level domains for which accreditation is sought, for applications submitted on or after 1 July 2001;

    Whereas, since July 2001 no change has been made in that application fee amount;

    Whereas, on 22 November 2010 ICANN posted on its website a proposal to complete additional due diligence checks and to increase the accreditation application fee, with a description of the proposed due diligence checks and the reason for increasing the application fee;

    Whereas, an online public comment period for the community to submit comments on the proposal, was held;

    Whereas, the public comment received was supportive of the proposed enhancements;

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.10), the application fee to be accredited by ICANN as a registrar shall be USD 3,500 for applications submitted on or after 1 July 2011.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.11) that the Board directs staff to conduct a review of the costs associated with the registrar accreditation application process to determine whether current fees cover those costs.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2011.04.21.10-11

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

    This has been a topic of discussion in the community as a means to improve security without the need for full policy development or contract amendments. It has been reviewed by the Finance Committee, and is ripe for decision prior to commencing the next fiscal year.

    What are the proposals being considered?

    The Board is considering whether or not to approve increase in Registrar Accreditation Application Fee from USD 2,500 to USD 3,500; the first fee increase in 10 years. The Board is also directing staff to do a full review of the costs associated with processing accreditation applications to assure fess and costs are aligned.

    What Stakeholders or others were consulted?

    The proposed enhancements to the registrar application process and increase in fees were subject to public comment from 22 November 2010 through 21 January 2011; four comments were received, one of them did not fully understand the proposal and the other three expressed full support. The proposed changes to the accreditation process and application fees were presented to the Registrar Stakeholder Group during the ICANN meeting in Cartagena without negative feedback.

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

    The only negative concern raised about the fee increase came from a registrar that incorrectly understood it to mean that this would be an increase in the annual fees paid by registrars. No other concerns about the application fee were raised.

    What significant materials did Board review?

    A Board paper detailing the proposal and an Annex that spelled out the rationale for the amount of the fee increase relative to the costs of pursuing background checks through a third party provider.

    What factors the Board found to be significant?

    The community recommendations that enhanced due diligence be undertaken in the registrar application review process. The Board Finance Committee reviewed and approved of the financial rationale for the increase and that it was revenue neutral. The BFC further recommended the additional resolution that a study be conducted about the overall application processing costs so that we can determine how costs align with fees. Finally, there was no stated opposition during the public comment forum.

    Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

    The enhanced due diligent reviews made possible by this fee increase will enhance the review process, especially at a time where it is expected that there will be an increase in interest in registrar accreditations with the introduction of new gTLDs.

    Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public?

    The fee increase is designed to be revenue neutral while additional background checks will be added to the application review process.

    Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

    The proposed due diligence checks have been introduced as a response to security concerns raised by the ICANN community and a desire that the process followed to accredit new registrars be enhanced with such due diligence checks in a revenue neutral fashion.

  2. From the SIC – Approval of Charter for Board Technical Relations Working Group

    Whereas, on 18 March 2011, the Board resolved to receive the Final Report of the TLG Review and to establish a Board Technical Relations WG, while directing the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to develop a Charter for this WG "based upon the report of the TLG review, comments to that review and any other available information, for consideration at the Board meeting of 21 April 2011", at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-18mar11-en.htm#7.

    Whereas, the SIC has developed a proposed Charter for the BTR WG.

    Whereas, the SIC, at its 11 April 2011 meeting, unanimously agreed to recommending the proposed BTR WG Charter for adoption by the Board.

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.12), the Board approves the BTR WG Charter proposed by the SIC subject to final adjustment of the Charter to include a step for further review and instructs the SIC, in coordination with staff, to support and follow the work of the WG.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.04.21.12:

    The proposed action is in direct response to a request from the Board and serves to advance the handling of the TLG review outcome in line with the direction set forth by the Board. While community input was not sought nor necessary for the drafting of this Charter, the WG is expected to consult with the community as it reaches its recommendations. The functioning of the BTR WG will require some support from existing staff and certain limited expenditures. There is no reason to delay this action as it would have very marginal budgetary consequences. This action will not have any input on the security or stability of the DNS.

  3. Review of Vertical Integration for Existing gTLD Registry Operators

    Whereas, the Board Resolved on 5 November 2010 that ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars for new gTLDs, and that "ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries."

    Whereas, current gTLD Registry Agreements include cross-ownership restrictions.

    Whereas, ICANN has received inquiries from several Operators about the process to remove the cross-ownership restrictions from their Registry Agreement and/or their ability to apply to become and ICANN-accredited Registrar.

    Whereas, the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions for Operators is predicated on first, the Board's approval of the new gTLD Program, and second, the Board's approval of a process for Operators to transition to the new form of Registry Agreement or to request an amendment to their existing registry agreements.

    Whereas, the Board anticipates that it will consider the new gTLD Program and the launch of new gTLDs at its meeting in Singapore in June 2011;

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.13), the Board directs the CEO to develop a process for existing gTLD registry operators to transition to the new form of Registry Agreement or to request amendments to their registry agreements to remove the cross-ownership restrictions. This process would be available to existing operators upon Board approval of the new gTLD Program.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.13

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

    The Board is addressing this now since they are scheduled to consider the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook on 20 June 2011. On 4 November 2010, ICANN Board Resolved that there should be a means for existing gTLD Registry Operators ("Operators") to transition to the new form of registry agreement, including the removal of restrictions on ownership of registries by registrars and vice-versa. The Operators argue that they need their current restrictions on cross-ownership to be removed on a timely basis in order to be able to compete on a level playing field with registrars that are planning to apply to operate new gTLDs. Approving a process for the existing Operators to pursue removal of their cross-ownership restrictions on a timely basis in conjunction with the Board's approval of the new gTLD Program would cause ICANN to appear to be responsive to the Operators' requests.

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

    The Operators argue that they need their current restrictions on cross-ownership to be removed on a timely basis in order to be able to compete with registrars that are planning to apply to operate new gTLDs. There are no current restrictions that prevent registrars from applying to operate new gTLD Registry Operators.

    Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

    There are positive community impacts as existing gTLD Registry Operators would be in a position to have their cross-ownership restrictions removed and that would put them on a level playing field with new gTLD Registry Operators. 

    Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public?

    There are no foreseen fiscal impacts/ramifications associated with approval of this Resolution on the Strategic Plan, the Operating Plan and/or the Budget. There is no information available at this time of the fiscal impacts/ramifications on the community or the public.

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

    There are no known issues relating to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS at this time.

  4. ATRT

    6.1 Board Management of ATRT Recommendations

    Whereas, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Report provided 27 recommendations to improve ICANN, and the Affirmation of Commitments obligates ICANN to take action on the Report by 30 June 2011;

    Whereas, implementation of these recommendations will require significant Board work, and extensive coordination with key community groups (including the Governmental Advisory Committee) and staff;

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.14), the Board tasks the following Board Committees to address the specified ATRT recommendations in the attached document [PDF, 60 KB].

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.14:

    As required by the Affirmation of Commitments, the recommendations resulting from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) were provided to the Board and posted for public comment. Public comments were supportive of the ATRT report and staff's due diligence resulted in advice that ICANN move forward with implementation of the ATRT's recommendations. Staff provided initial, proposed plans that demonstrated ICANN's ability to implement the recommendations and provided estimated resource costs. The Board asked staff to work with affected organizations and develop final implementation plans for Board approval, and notes that ICANN has already made progress on implementation of several operational changes called for by the ATRT.

    Implementation of the 27 ATRT recommendations will require significant Board work, and extensive coordination with key community groups (including the Governmental Advisory Committee) and staff. To help ensure implementation moves forward expeditiously, the Board is delegating recommendation implementation work to relevant Board Committees, [and creating a temporary Board-GAC joint working group to address GAC-related recommendations. NOTE: this portion of the Rationale has not been updated to reflect a change to the Board's resolution. The Rationale will be formally changed prior to its adoption during the next Board meeting.]

    6.2 Estimated Budget Implications of ATRT Recommendations for FY2012 Budget

    Whereas, the Board has found that the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's (ATRT's) recommendations have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and may be implemented by ICANN following careful and transparent consideration, and with the necessary support and resources;

    Whereas, an estimated US$2,600,000 will be required to complete ATRT implementation activities in FY2012;

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.15), the Board asks the BFC to consider the FY2012 ATRT implementation funding as detailed by staff and to report back to the Board at its next meeting.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.15

    The Board noted previously that all 27 of the ATRT recommendations have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and may be implemented by ICANN following careful and transparent consideration, and with the necessary support and resources. The Board recently asked staff to work with affected organizations and develop final implementation plans for Board approval, and noted that ICANN has already made progress on implementation of several operational changes called for by the ATRT. The Board is doing due diligence on the implementation of the recommendations and wants to ensure that the fiscal year 2012 budget, which is being finalized, includes appropriate funds for these activities.

    The Board has approved inclusion of additional funding in the FY2012 budget for implementation of the ATRT recommendations, and reiterates its commitment to advancing ICANN's accountability and transparency.

  5. IDN ccTLD DELEGATIONS

    7.1 Delegation of الجزائر ("Al Jazair") representing Algeria in Arabic

    Whereas, Algeria is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

    Whereas, الجزائر ("al-Jazair"), encoded as "xn--lgbbat1ad8j", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Algeria through the IDN Fast Track process;

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .الجزائر to Centre de Recherche sur l'Information Scientifique et Technique (CERIST);

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

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.16), that the proposed delegation of the .الجزائر top-level domain to CERIST is approved.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.16

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

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

    What is the proposal being considered?

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

    Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

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

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

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

    What significant materials did the Board review?

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

    What factors the Board found to be significant?

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

    Are there positive or negative community impacts?

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

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

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

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

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

    7.2 Delegation of المغرب ("al-Maghrib") representing Morocco in Arabic

    Whereas, المغرب ("al-Maghrib"), encoded as "xn--mgbc0a9azcg" is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Morocco through the IDN Fast Track process.

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .المغرب to the Agence Nationale de Réglementation des Télécommunications.

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

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.17), the proposed delegation of the .المغرب domain to the Agence Nationale.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.17

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

    Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provideda 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.

    7.3 Delegation of the .срб ("srb") domain representing Serbia in Cyrillic

    Whereas, Serbia is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

    Whereas, срб ("srb"), encoded as "xn--90a3ac", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Serbia through the IDN Fast Track process;

    Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .срб to Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names (RNIDS);

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

    RESOLVED (2011.04.21.18), the proposed delegation of the .срб top-level domain to Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names is approved.

    RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2011.04.21.18

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

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

    What is the proposal being considered?

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

    Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

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

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

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

    What significant materials did the Board review?

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

    What factors the Board found to be significant?

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

    Are there positive or negative community impacts?

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Connected

  • News Alerts:
  • Newsletter:
  • Compliance Newsletter:
  • Policy Update: