Updated 26 March 2013
The attached ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List sets out what the board heard in Toronto where board action was required, what the proposed action was, and what we've done since the ICANN 45 Meeting. In the future, it is intended that an Action List like this one will continue to be published no later than 1 month after each meeting. Just prior to the following meeting an updated version of the Action List will be published setting out what the board has done with respect to each item.
|What we heard where action is needed
|What We've Done
|Suggestion to establish an ICANN mailing list for those in the ICANN community who will be at WCIT (possibly widen list to I*).
|Direct the staff to set up mailing list.
|Do not proceed with 2013-2016 Strategic Plan. A new procedure is coming and it needs to ensure there are mechanisms for hearing input so the Community feels heard.
|The Board has been discussing this since its September board workshop in Los Angeles and plans to continue to work on it and report back as soon as possible. The Board recognizes that any strategic planning framework will need to include the results of the African Strategic Working Group.
|The upcoming May 2013 Board Retreat to focus on strategic planning.
|The Board heard several matters from the GAC, which it expects will be addressed in the GAC Communiqué, but specifically notes that the timing of the Board's response to the GAC Communiqué was sub-optimal.
|The Board acknowledges the problem and will endeavor to put in place a mechanism to ensure timely arrival of its response.
|The Board has worked to minimize the amount of time taken to respond to GAC Communiqués by establishing a more thorough timeline.
|WHOIS Review Report
|There is no consensus on the actions that should follow the WHOIS Review.
|The Board will discuss the WHOIS Review during its Board meeting this afternoon.
|Completed. The Board took action on the Report on 8 Nov. 2012, directing renewed and new efforts be undertaken to enforce current WHOIS policy and contractual conditions, and seeking a new approach to gTLD directory services challenges. We have created a second track to take a strategic look at registration data. The Expert Working Group (EWG) is the first step in this process.
|Patents in Policy Processes
|Various parts of the GNSO have indicated that a future policy in this area may be needed and that we should address it before it becomes a concern.
|Board to request "expert advice" on this topic and then put out the recommended approach for public comment to be adopted by the Board.
|ICANN staff is in the process of scoping and organizing the collection of expert advice on this issue to meet the Board's request. During the Beijing meeting, staff will provide an initial memo on the patent topic, which will include additional follow-up steps, including further expert consultation.
|Article 29 Working Party Letter
|Many concerns were expressed.
|The letter will be taken into account in finalizing the negotiations on the RAA.
|Concerns were taken into account in the RAA negotiations, as were further communications from data protection authorities in the EU on this same topic.
|JAS applications need to be given priority in this round and improved in the next round.
|Treatment during this round is in the hands of the CEO and the New gTLD Program Committee. Treatment in future rounds will be taken up when the next round is formulated.
|No action needed at this point. To be addressed in next round of applications for new gTLDs.
New gTLDs - General implementation issues:
|Numerous comments. Concern expressed that ICANN is not ready in some areas and will not be ready in time.
|The Board is instructing the CEO to focus his full attention and energy on all implementation actions necessary to keep the program on track.
Work ongoing. Please refer to the links below for the most up-to-date information on the New gTLD Program.
|New gTLD Funds
|Document the total amount borrowed from the reserve fund to finance the pre-revenue period of the new gTLD program, and document the intended repayment schedule.
|We will do so.
|Detailed documentation of the costs since defined beginning of the program is in the process of being gathered and formalized into a centralized document. The repayment schedule has been determined in the revenue and expense recognition position paper, and corresponds to a monthly repayment throughout the evaluation process.
|Generally positive feedback that IDN's should have priority; a number of suggestions were made to give preference to various subgroups in association with the Prioritization Draw.
|The NGPC will consider all feedback from this meeting feedback from this meeting and the comment period. All suggestions are being considered by and will be decided by the CEO & NGPC.
|Prioritization draw held on 17 December 2012.
|Rights Protection in New gTLDs
A handful of concerns were raised regarding the rights protection mechanism(s).
The IPC and Business Constituency have reached consensus on further mechanisms for rights protections in new gTLDs. They agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO.
All of these are in the hands of the CEO and the New gTLD Program Committee.
The Board looks forward to receiving input on these suggestions from the GNSO.
|The CEO convened a series of stakeholder meetings to review the rights protection mechanisms in light of the IPC/BC list of recs. These resulted in the "Strawman solution" which was posted for public comment as well provided to the GNSO with a request for guidance. The GNSO provided its input and the public comment summary and a review of the analysis are posted.
There are a significant number of issues with regard to the Trademark Clearinghouse both from an implementation and cost point of view.
Interest in whether the final draft agreement and the signed agreement for the trademark clearinghouse will be made public.
The rights to the trademark clearinghouse database must remain with ICANN.
The Board supports the CEO's decision to make solving these issues his top priority.
Yes, it will be made public.
The rights will remain with ICANN.
Changes have been made to the technical implementation in response to stakeholder feedback.
The Trademark Clearinghouse agreement has been split across the functions into several agreements, and these will be posted.
The agreements reflect that the rights to the database remain with ICANN.
|Submission of Public Forum Topics
|Public Forum questions submitted in advance should include hinting sentences so everyone can be prepared.
|Forwarded to staff and the Public Participation Committee (PPC) for implementation.
|Ongoing discussion by Board on format of public forum moving forward. New ideas will be tried in Beijing.