Board Activities and Meetings
A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held on 13 October 2012 at 4:00 pm local time in Toronto, Canada.
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: Sébastien Bachollet, Cherine Chalaby, Fadi Chehadé (President and CEO), Bertrand de La Chapelle, Chris Disspain, Bill Graham, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Ray Plzak, R. Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin (Vice Chair), Judith Vazquez, and Kuo-Wei Wu.
The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Ram Mohan (SSAC Liaison); Thomas Narten (IETF Liaison); Thomas Roessler (TLG Liaison); and Suzanne Woolf (RSSAC Liaison).
Heather Dryden (GAC Liaison) sent apologies.
This is a preliminary report of the approved resolutions resulting from the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, which took place on 13 October 2012
- Consent Agenda:
- Main Agenda:
- Executive Session
The Chair introduced the consent agenda, and the .name item was removed at the request of Bruce Tonkin.
Ray Plzak moved the resolutions on the consent agenda and George Sadowsky seconded. The Board then took the following action:
Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are approved:
Resolved (2012.10.13.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 3 October 2012 ICANN Board Meeting.
Acknowledgment of Receipt and Thank You for SAC056 Advisory on Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System to the ICANN Board.
Whereas, on 9 October 2012, the Security & Stability Advisory Committee forward the SSAC Advisory: SAC056: SSAC Advisory on Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System to the ICANN Board.
Whereas, the ICANN Board acknowledges that blocking using the DNS can cause collateral damage or unintended consequences with limited or no remedies available to affected parties.
Resolved (2012.10.13.02), the ICANN Board acknowledges receipt of SAC056 and thanks the SSAC for their work in preparing this Advisory for the ICANN community.
To remain accountable to the ICANN community, the Board considers it important to acknowledge the reports prepared by its Advisory Committee. This action does not have any impact on the resources of ICANN, and acknowledging the report is not expected to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.
This is an ICANN Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.
Whereas, the Charter of the Board Governance Committee required changes to remain factually accurate and the BGC recommends the Board to approve the changes.
Resolved (2012.10.13.03), the Board approves the revised Board Governance Committee Charter.
As part of its annual work, the Board Governance Committee performs a review of its Charter to assure that the work of the BGC is in alignment with its Charter. The change approved today does not have any impact on the resources of ICANN or the community. This action does not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.
This action is an ICANN Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Sixteen members of the Board voted in favor of Resolutions 2012.10.13.01, 2012.10.13.02, and 2012.10.13.03. The resolutions carried.
The Chair noted that this item was moved to the main agenda due to Bruce Tonkin electing to abstain from voting on this item because of a potential contractual relationship.
Ray Plzak moved and George Sadowsky seconded the resolution.
Sébastien Bachollet noted his concerns with the agreement regarding the language on implementation of updated Whois requirements if adopted by the IETF.
The Board then took the following action:
Whereas, on 3 July 2012 ICANN commenced a public comment period <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-renewal-2012-03jul12-en.htm> on a proposed agreement for renewal of the 2007 .name Registry Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/name/agreement-15aug07-en.htm>.
Whereas, the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring the .name Registry Agreement into line with other comparable agreements.
Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed agreement closed on 23 August 2012, with ICANN receiving three comments; a summary and analysis of the comments was provided to the Board.
The Board has determined that no revisions to the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement are needed after taking the comments into account.
Whereas, the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement includes significant improvements as compared to the current .name Registry Agreement.
Resolved (2012.10.13.04), the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement is approved, and the President and CEO and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement.
Fifteen members of the Board voted in favor of the resolution. Bruce Tonkin abstained from voting. The resolution carried.
Bruce stated that his abstention is based on the fact that Verisign in the operator of the .name registry and his employer has a contractual relationship with Verisign.
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?
The prior .name Registry Agreement expired on 15 August 2012. Verisign is continuing to operate under the terms of the prior agreement during ICANN's consideration of the proposed new form of agreement. The proposed renewal agreement was posted for public comment on 3 July 2012. The comment period closed on 23 August 2012.
What is the proposal being considered?
The changes to the .name Agreement and the Appendices fall within several broad categories: (i) changes to promote consistency across registries; (ii) changes to update the agreement to reflect changes that have occurred since the current .name Registry Agreement was signed (including updating references, technical changes and other updates); and (iii) changes to allow Verisign to better serve the internet community (including to allow Verisign to more quickly address certain imminent threats to the security and stability of the TLD or the Internet).
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
ICANN conducted a public comment period on the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement from 3 July 2012 through 23 August 2012, following which time the comments were summarized and analyzed.
What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
Three members of the community participated in the public comment, however, only one comment substantively addressed the proposed Agreement. That comment addressed competitive contract bidding.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement and its Appendices, as well as the public comment summary and analysis.
What factors the Board found to be significant?
The Board carefully considered the public comments and the Staff recommendation with respect to those comments. The Board considered ICANN's contractual obligations with respect to the .name Registry Agreement currently in operation in reaching this decision, specifically that the Agreement must be renewed absent certain uncured breaches by the registry operator and that certain terms of the renewal are required to conform to existing comparable gTLD registry agreements.
Are there positive or negative community impacts?
As part of the renewal process, ICANN conducted a review of Verisign's recent performance under the currently operated .name Registry Agreement. The contractual compliance review covered areas including: (i) SRS Outage Restrictions; (ii) equal Registrar access to the SRS; (iii) bulk zone file access; (iv) payment of required fees; and (v) submission of monthly reports. Verisign was found to have met its contractual requirements (see http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/reports/operator-verisign-name-06apr12-en.pdf [PDF, 104 KB]). Evidence indicates that the community can expect that good performance to continue.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
There is no significant fiscal impact expected if ICANN approves the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement. The provisions regarding registry-level fees and pricing constraints are for the most part consistent with the new gTLD base agreement and the current major gTLDs.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
There are no expected security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if ICANN approves the proposed .name renewal Registry Agreement. The proposed agreement in fact includes terms intended to allow for swifter action in the event of certain threats to the security or stability of the DNS.
The Board had a conversation regarding the item within the confidential resolution, as well as a discussion on the process for getting items before the Board in sufficient advance time before the Board must consider the items.
Resolved (2012.10.13.07), the Board approves maintaining the confidentiality of all or a portion of this Resolution 2012.10.13.05 and 2012.10.13.06, the corresponding rationale and related materials.
All members of the Board approved Resolutions 2012.10.13.05, 2012.10.13.06 and 2012.13.07. The Resolutions carried.
This is an ICANN Organizational Administrative Function requiring public comment.
The Board engaged in an executive session. No resolutions were taken during the executive session.
The Chair called the meeting to a close.
Published on 21 December 2012.