Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board

28 August 2012
  1. Consent Agenda:
    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
    2. Confirmation of Report on Written Consent Actions
    3. Request for Delegation of مليسيا ("Maleesya") domain representing Malaysia in Arabic
    4. Redelegation of .rw
    5. Location of Africa 2013 Meeting
  2. Main Agenda:
    1. BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 12-2
  3. Executive Session

 

  1. Consent Agenda:

    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes

      Resolved (2012.08.28.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 23 June 2012 ICANN Board Meeting.

    2. Confirmation of Report on Written Consent Actions

      Resolved (2012.08.28.02) the Board confirms the report on the Written Consent Actions of the August 2012.

    3. Request for Delegation of مليسيا. ("Maleesya") domain representing Malaysia in Arabic

      Whereas, ‎مليسيا. ("Maleesya"), encoded as "xn--mgbx4cd0ab", is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Malaysia through the IDN Fast Track process.

      Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of ‎مليسيا. to MYNIC Berhad.

      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.

      It is hereby resolved (2012.08.28.03), that the proposed delegation of the ‎مليسيا. domain to MYNIC Berhad is approved.

      Rationale for Resolution 2012.08.28.03

      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.

    4. Redelegation of .rw

      Whereas, RW is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Rwanda;

      Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the redelegation of .RW to the Rwanda Information Communication and Technology Association;

      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.

      It is hereby resolved (2012.08.28.04), that the proposed redelegation of the .RW domain to the Rwanda Information Communication and Technology Association is approved.

      Rationale for Resolution 2012.08.28.04

      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.

    5. Location of Africa 2013 Meeting

      Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its second Meeting for 2013 in the Africa region as per its policy,

      Whereas, the .za Domain Name Authority submitted a viable proposal to serve as host for the ICANN 2013 Africa Meeting.

      Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review and analysis of the .za Domain Name Authority proposal and finds it acceptable.

      Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has approved the budget for the ICANN 2013 Africa Meeting as proposed.

      Whereas the Board Public Participation Committee is coordinating the review of the staff proposal and supports the proposition for the location of the ICANN 2013 Africa Meeting.

      Resolved (2012.08.28.05), the Board accepts the proposal of the .za Domain Name Authority, and approves that the ICANN 2013 Africa Meeting shall be held in Durban, South Africa from 14-19 July 2013, with a budget not to exceed US$2.472M.

      Rationale for Resolution 2012.08.28.05

      As part of ICANN's public meeting schedule, three times a year ICANN hosts a meeting in a different geographic region (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) of the world. This time exceptionally the 3rd meeting of FY2013 will be in fact organized during FY2014. Meeting Number 47, scheduled for 14-19 July 2013, is to occur in the Africa geographic region. A call for recommendations for the location of the meeting in Africa was posted on 25 April 2011. Various parties sent a proposal to ICANN.

      The Staff performed a thorough analysis of all of the proposals and prepared a paper to identify those that met the Meeting Selection Criteria. Based on the proposals and analysis, the Staff has recommended that ICANN 47 be held in Durban, South Africa.

      The Board reviewed Staff's recommendation for hosting the meeting in Durban, South Africa and the determination that the proposal met the significant factors of the Meeting Selection Criteria used to guide site selection work. Outside of the call for recommendations, the process for selection of sites does not call for public consultation, as the staff assessment of the feasibility of any site is the primary consideration.

      There will be a financial impact on ICANN in hosting the meeting and providing travel support as necessary, as well as on the community in incurring costs to travel to the meeting. But such impact would be faced regardless of the location of the meeting. There is no impact on the security or the stability of the DNS due to the hosting of the meeting.

  2. Main Agenda:

    1. BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 12-2

      Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has reviewed Reconsideration Request 12-2 submitted by the Intellectual Property Concerns Constituency concerning the Board's 6 May 2012 decision on Fundacio puntCAT's RSEP Request regarding the publication of Whois data for certain registrations within the .CAT Registry (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1.2).

      Whereas, the BGC recommends that Reconsideration Request 12-2 should be denied.

      Whereas, Reconsideration Request 12-2 and the BGC's recommendation have been posted on the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration.

      Resolved (2012.08.28.06), the Board adopts the recommendation of the BGC that Reconsideration Request 12-2 be denied, as the request did not identify any material information that the Board failed to take into consideration when taking its 6 May 2012 decision.

      Resolved (2012.08.28.07), the Board directs the Secretary to amend the Whereas clause precedent to Resolution 2012.05.06.02 so as to remove the suggestion of a blanket prohibition of publication of Whois data for individual registrants, and to more accurately reflect the scope of the amendment to the .CAT Registry Agreement that was requested and approved.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2012.08.28.06 – 2012.08.28.07

      ICANN's Bylaws call for the Board Governance Committee to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board with respect to Reconsideration Requests. See Article IV, section 3 of the Bylaws. The Board has reviewed and thoroughly considered the BGC's recommendation with respect to Reconsideration Request 12-2 and finds the analysis sound.

      The Board also agrees that it is essential to ICANN's accountability and transparency to assure that the wording within resolutions accurately reflects the scope of the decisions undertaken by the Board. Here, a "whereas" clause within Resolution 2012.05.06.02 was identified as overstating the bounds of the amendment requested and approved by the Board. It is therefore in accordance with ICANN's commitment to accountability to direct a change to the "whereas" clause to better reflect the scope of the amendment sought and granted. The modification of the "whereas" clause does not have any impact on the actual scope of the Board's 6 May 2012 decision.

      Having a Reconsideration process whereby the BGC reviews and makes a recommendation to the Board for approval positively affects the transparency and accountability of ICANN. It provides an avenue for the community to ensure that staff and the Board are acting in accordance with ICANN's policies, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Adopting the BGC's recommendation has no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

  3. Executive Session

    The Board conducted a confidential portion of the meeting during which it passed other resolutions (2012.08.28.C1 and 2011.08.28.C2) that shall remain confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws.

Stay Connected

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