Skip to main content
Resources

Minutes of Special Board Meeting

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 22 April 2010 @ 11.00 UTC. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush promptly called the meeting to order.

In addition to Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo Beca, Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Dennis Jennings (Vice Chairman), Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Steve Crocker, Gonzalo Navarro, Rita Rodin Johnston, Raymond A. Plzak, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, and Katim Touray.

The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Jonne Soininen, TLG Liaison; and Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Liaison.

Also, the following ICANN Management and staff participated in all or part of the meeting: John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer; Barbara Clay, Vice President – Marketing and Communications; Jamie Hedlund, Vice President of Government Affairs - Americas; David Olive, Vice President – Policy; Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Services; Kevin Wilson, Chief Financial Officer; Donna Austin, Chief of Staff to the CEO; Geoff Bickers, Director of Security Operations; Tina Dam, Senior Director, IDNs; Kim Davies, Manager, Root Zone Services; Denise Michel, Advisor to the CEO; Greg Rattray, Chief Internet Security Officer; Diane Schroeder, Director of Board Support; and Nick Tomasso, General Manager of Meetings and Conferences.

  1. Consent Agenda Resolution:

    The Board discussed the content of the Consent Agenda, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat made a suggestion regarding uniformity of reference to ICANN’s CEO throughout all resolutions. The following resolutions were approved unanimously 12-0. The Resolutions were moved together by Dennis Jennings, and George Sadowsky seconded the motion. Harald Alvestrand, Raimundo Beca, and Katim Touray were not available to vote on the Resolutions.

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

    1. .INFO Contract Amendment re One & Two Character Names

      Whereas, Afilias has submitted a request pursuant to ICANN’s Registry Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .INFO Registry Agreements to allocate one and two-character domain names via a phased allocation process.

      Whereas, the proposed release of single and two-character domain names in .INFO would be consistent with the recommendations of the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group and other approvals to permit the release of one and two-character domain names.

      Whereas, ICANN has evaluated the proposed amendment to the .INFO Registry Agreement as new registry services pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and has posted amendments for public comment and Board approval (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/).

      It is hereby RESOLVED (2010.04.22.01) that the .INFO amendment is approved, and the CEO and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendments.

    2. Redelegation – Tanzania (.TZ)

      Whereas, TZ is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the United Republic of Tanzania,

      Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .TZ to Tanzania Network Information Centre Limited;

      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 (2010.04.22.02), that the proposed redelegation of the .TZ domain to Tanzania Network Information Centre Limited is approved.

    3. Approval of Recommendation from Compensation Committee regarding Paul Twomey’s At Risk Component of Compensation as Senior President

      Whereas, on 30 September 2009, the ICANN Board granted to ICANN's CEO “the authority vested under the Consultant Services Agreement for setting milestones, evaluating performance against those milestones, and making payment to Argo Pacific for the Senior President, Dr. Paul Twomey's performance bonus, as the President and CEO reasonably determined, in his discretion.”

      Whereas, the CEO has developed a proposal for payment to Argo Pacific for Senior President Dr. Paul Twomey's performance bonus for services provided under the Consultant Services Agreement.

      Resolved, (2010.04.22.03), the Board hereby adopts and ratifies the proposal for payment to Argo Pacific for the Senior President Dr. Paul Twomey's performance bonus under the Consultant Services Agreement between ICANN and Argo Pacific.

    4. Renewal of DotPro Registry Agreement

      Whereas, the Current Agreement is due to expire on 27 May 2010;

      Whereas, ICANN staff conducted good-faith negotiations with Registry Services Corporation, operator of the .PRO gTLD, for the renewal of their Registry Agreement;

      Whereas, on 9 March 2010, ICANN announced that negotiations with Registry Services Corporation had been successfully completed, and posted the Agreement for public comment http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09mar10-en.htm;

      Whereas, the Board carefully considered the Agreement and finds that its approval would be beneficial for the whole Internet community;

      It is hereby RESOLVED, (2010.04.22.04), that the .PRO Registry Agreement is approved, and the CEO is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the Agreement.

Resolutions 2010.04.22.01; 2010.04.22.02; 2010.04.22.03; and 2010.04.22.04 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items. All Board Members present unanimously approved these resolutions.

  1. Main Board Meeting
    1. President’s Report

Peter Dengate Thrush inquired of the President and CEO regarding termination of registrars and future expectations regarding termination activity.

Rod Beckstrom responded that there had been concerns in the community that compliance enforcement was not aggressive enough, and Rod worked with the Services department to push towards a more aggressive compliance stance.

Kurt Pritz provided information on the implementation of the compliance plan to address registrar issues, with particular focuses on Whois provision, data escrow and consistent overdue payments as clear-cut areas of compliance, and the success of that focus in strengthening compliance activity. Kurt noted that as the initial plan comes to conclusion, there might be a slight drop in the number of terminations.

The Chair also inquired of staff work relating to the depletion of IPv4 space, communications surrounding the depletion, and other work in the IANA Functions Department.

The CEO reported on staff work in line with RIR policies, and that approximately 7% of IPv4 space remains available, and confirmed that the new Vice President of Marketing and Communications would address a communications strategy similar to the announcement made when the 10% depletion mark was met.

Doug Brent reported on the upcoming IANA Functions Department Business Excellence webinar, to inform the community on the work being done, and confirmed that more information could be prepared for the Board.

Bruce Tonkin thanked the CEO for the report, and Rita Rodin Johnston noted her appreciation for the enhanced contractual compliance work.

Dennis Jennings provided suggestions for additional information that could be included in the CEO’s written report.

    1. Delegation of IDN ccTLDs

The Chair invited the Board to ask questions of staff regarding the written reports on the four proposed IDN ccTLD delegations before the Board.

Kim Davies provided the Board with a summary of the requirement for documentation of community support for IDN ccTLD delegation requests, and other information on the process for handling delegation requests.

The Chair noted the ongoing work in the ccNSO on the delegation process.

Janis Karklins cautioned that without full definition of the community support requirements, there is a risk that some countries and territories are differently organized and it would be unfair to impose an undefined standard.

The CEO confirmed the need for respect for different governmental positions and acknowledged that reexamination of ICANN’s practices may be necessary on a going-forward basis.

Doug Brent acknowledged that staff has been very careful in its evaluations and applying the same methodology as used in the ASCII ccTLD realm, and recommends approval of all four of the requested delegations.

Harald Alvestrand noted his support for moving forward with the delegations of the first four IDN ccTLDs.

Mike Silber noted a concern for imposing requirements that are not clearly stated, and that criteria need to be well-established prior to attempting to evaluate requests against those criteria.

Jean-Jacques echoed Janis and the CEO’s comments regarding cultural differences, and that the Board and staff need to determine how the criteria can appropriately evolve.

Rita Rodin Johnston also supported a future look at processes to develop more crisp criteria for applicants to meet.

Ram Mohan supported Rita’s comments, and encouraged the Board to clarify that IDN ccTLD delegations are conducted on a basis similar to ASCII ccTLD delegations.

The Chair noted his agreement with Ram, and that the ASCII process needs to be clarified in the criteria as well.

Jonne Soininen expressed his support for Harald, Rita and Ram’s comments and moving forward with the delegations. Jonne also requested that the Board agree that “what is community support” should be a matter for ccNSO policy development, so that the Board is not trying to define such policies on its own.

Vanda Scartezini and Katim Touray also expressed their support for moving forward with the delegations. Katim noted that experience might assist in future clarification of the process.

Jean-Jacques noted his support for Jonne’s suggestion for ccNSO advice on this topic.

The Chair confirmed that the timing of the ongoing work at the ccNSO would not provide answers on these issues for a couple of years to come.

      1. Delegation of the.рф(“R.F.”)domain representing the Russian Federation to Coordination Center for TLD RU

George Sadowsky then moved and Mike Silber seconded the following Resolution:

Whereas, the Russian Federation is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas, рф (xn--p1ai )(“R.F.”) is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the Russian Federation through the IDN Fast Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .рф to Coordination Center for TLD RU.

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 (2010.04.22.05), that the proposed delegation of the .рф domain to CoordinationCenter for TLD RU as a country-code top-level domain is approved.

The resolution was approved unanimously, 15-0.

      1. Delegation of the السعودية.(“Al-Saudiah”) domain representing Saudi Arabia in Arabic to the Communications and Information Technology Commission

The following resolution was moved by Mike Silber and seconded my Katim Touray:

Whereas, Saudi Arabia is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas, السعودية (xn--mgberp4a5d4ar )(“al-Saudiah”) is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Saudi Arabia through the IDN Fast Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of السعودية. to the Communications and Information Technology Commission.

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 (2010.04.22.06), that the proposed delegation of the السعودية. domain to the Communications and Information Technology Commission is approved.

Twelve Board members voted in favor of this resolution. Peter Dengate Thrush, Dennis Jennings and Jean-Jacques Subrenat abstained from voting on this resolution. No Board members voted in opposition to this resolution. The resolution carried.

      1. Delegation of theامارات.(“Emarat”) domain representing the United Arab Emirates to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority

Bruce Tonkin then moved and George Sadowsky seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, the United Arab Emirates is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas, امارات (xn--mgbaam7a8h ) (“Emarat”) is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent the United Arab Emirates through the IDN Fast Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of امارات . to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority.

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 (2010.04.22.07), that the proposed delegation of the امارات . domain to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority is approved.

The resolution was approved unanimously 15-0.

      1. Delegation of the مصر. (“Misr”) domain representing Egypt to the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority

The CEO and President provided an overview of the staff work relating to the review of the delegation.

Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Katim Touray questioned the sufficiency of the documentation provided to the Board. The CEO and Kim Davies provided further explanation to the Board regarding the delegation paperwork.

Rita Rodin Johnston and Ram Mohan noted their support in moving forward with approving the delegation.

Steve Crocker then moved, and Rita Rodin Johnston seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, Egypt is a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas,
مصر (xn--wgbh1c )(“Misr”) is a string that has been deemed to appropriately represent Egypt through the IDN Fast Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of
مصر . to the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority.

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 (2010.04.22.08), that the proposed delegation of the
مصر . domain to the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority is approved.

Twelve Board members voted in favor of this resolution. Mike Silber, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Katim Touray abstained from voting on this resolution. No Board members voted in opposition to this resolution. The resolution carried.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat noted his abstention on the basis that further clarification is required to the information provided to the Board.

Katim Touray noted his abstention on the basis that there should be more thorough adherence to the rules of documentation.

Mike Silber noted his abstention was on the same grounds as Jean-Jacques and Katim.

Dennis Jennings noted that he voted in favor of the resolution as he was satisfied that the supporting information provided to the Board in written documentation and reporting met the substantive requirements for the delegation process.

Janis Karklins noted his gratitude to the Board for the decisions on the delegation of the first four IDN ccTLDs.

    1. Latin American Meeting Location

Geoff Bickers provided an update to the Board on security-related issues that were considered as part of the recommendation of the meeting location in Cartagena.

Mike Silber noted his disappointment that the report to the Board did not appear to address a comparison of costs for the Cartagena meeting location to the other site under consideration in Buenos Aires, as well as flight considerations and community perception.

The CEO and President noted that the strong recommendation of the Internet community in Latin America, and the support and advice of the Board members and liaisons from Latin America, supported the pursuit of the Cartagena location, and confirmed that the security profile was in line with the Board’s recent adoption of UN Security phasing as an objective standard for evaluation of meeting locations.

Nick Tomasso confirmed that a comparison of costs between Cartagena and Buenos Aires was undertaken and the variance of costs was just over 3% of the proposed meeting budget, including flights, accommodations and all other meeting-related costs.

The Chair noted that the Public Participation Committee is looking at the process of how meeting locations are selected, and general Board concerns of what should be taken into account can be provided to that Committee.

Doug Brent noted that the security risks were fully reviewed prior to proceeding with the recommendation.

Vanda Scartezini noted that the security conditions are nearly the same in Cartagena as they are in Buenos Aires. Vanda also noted the very high level of community support for the Cartagena proposal.

Raimundo Beca thanked the staff for the quality of reporting prepared to support the recommendation. Raimundo echoed the CEO and Vanda’s comments regarding the level of community support for the meeting location in Cartagena, including the support of the manager of the country code Top Level Domain for Argentina.

Raimundo Beca then moved, and Gonzalo Navarro seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2010 in the Latin America region as per its policy;

Whereas .CO Internet S.A.S. was one of the entities that submitted a viable proposal to serve as host for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;

Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the .CO Internet S.A.S proposal and finds it acceptable;

Whereas, the Board Finance Committee recommended and the Board of Directors have approved a budget of US$2.126M for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;

It is hereby RESOLVED, (2010.04.22.09), that the Board accepts the .CO Internet S.A.S. proposal and approves that the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting shall be held in Cartagena, Colombia from 5-10 December 2010, with a budget not to exceed US$2.126M, and that the Cartagena Meeting designated as the 2010 Annual Meeting.

Twelve Board members voted in favor of this resolution. George Sadowsky, Mike Silber and Jean-Jacques Subrenat abstained from voting on this resolution. No Board members voted in opposition to this resolution. The resolution carried.

George Sadowsky noted his abstention on the grounds that he could not support the process that led to the Board decision, as he felt it is inappropriate to ignore the security complaints and similar problems that will arise from comparisons with Nairobi.

Mike Silber noted his abstention on the same grounds as George.

    1. Affirmation of Commitments
      1. (A) Meeting Our Commitments under AOC

The CEO introduced the discussion on the Affirmation of Commitments by noting that it is a long-term process, with a focus on how the organization can improve to comply with the commitments undertaken. Much within the organization will need to evolve and change, and the process of beginning that evolution is well underway. The CEO then noted that much of his initial work was shifting the values of the organization to truly model a commitment to transparency and accountability, including decisions such as the extensive disclosure of security risks in Kenya to the community, and the immediate release of information relating to the unfavorable Declaration received in the ICM Independent Review Process. The CEO commented that one test of transparency and accountability it so share bad news as quickly as ICANN shares good news.

The CEO also reported on the internal work which occurred in all departments, including staff reading the Affirmations document and identifying what the Affirmations meant to the departmental work. These databases will be publicly available and will report on the status of actions on resolutions/recommendations in order to provide a baseline for the community and determine where prioritization of implementation may need to take place.

The CEO also highlighted the expanded transparency in reporting on executive compensation noting publication of current pay conditions rather than waiting for annual reports or tax filings, noting that this was a higher standard recognized leaders in compensation disclosure practices. Finally, the CEO identified the Board action to provide Board resolutions more quickly than previously required, the ongoing work on additional economic studies as addressed in the Affirmations document, and the alignment of ICANN’s cost accounting categories with the strategic plan as additional ways that ICANN is moving towards transparency and accountability.

The Board received an update from the CEO regarding the actions taken by ICANN to improve compliance with the Affirmation of Commitments, and the strong commitment to accountability and transparency within the organization, including having a senior staff member dedicated, full time, to accountability and transparency work. Denise Michel has also been moved into a senior executive position where she dedicates 100% of her time to accountability and transparency, including leading the assemblage of a database of every resolution undertaken by the Board.

The Chair noted that there is a significant amount of work being done within the organization to meet the commitments undertaken, and suggested that the Board should continue to defer formalizing a mechanism for Board oversight on the work to meet the Affirmations.

Dennis Jennings suggested that an objective set of standards for staff to work against would be helpful in doing more to achieve greater accountability and transparency.

The Chair noted that accountability and transparency is just one of the commitments undertaken by the organization, a high level plan is needed for the organization to meet all of the commitments. Board oversight – and community involvement in that process – will likely be happening in the future.

      1. Board oversight of performance of Affirmation of Commitments: Supporting & Facilitating Reviews

The Chair opened a discussion on setting up a short-term working group to set up parameters for supporting and maintaining the Affirmations review teams, to address issues such as supporting and staffing. The Chair noted he’d be requesting Board members to volunteers to serve on this working group.

Dennis Jennings volunteered to participate in the working group.

Janis Karklins clarified that the working group would not be any level of Board supervision over the review teams or the work of the review team.

The Chair noted his agreement with Janis’ comment and clarified that supervision is not the intention. The intention is to fulfill the Board’s administrative responsibility in making sure that the reviews are done properly.

Bruce Tonkin clarified that the working group would be a used to support and facilitate the reviews, not to oversee the reviews.

      1. Transparency & Accountability Review Update

Janis Karklins provided a report on the establishment of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team and the work of the team leading up to the first face-to-face meeting in Marina del Rey on 5-6 May 2010.

The Chair reported on the addition of a further member from the ccNSO, Erick Iriarte from Peru, to achieve the full complement of the team.

    1. Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized ccTLD IDNs

Dennis Jennings presented the proposed resolutions regarding Synchronized IDN ccTLDs to the Board.

The Chair inquired as to whether the proposed resolutions represented policy issues.

Dennis noted that the resolutions represented a pragmatic solution to a problem, and that future policy development would be needed for a longer-term solution.

The Chair noted that, as represented in the Board’s resolution in Nairobi, commitments to migrate to future technical solutions should be included in the resolution.

Bruce Tonkin noted that he would not support the addition of language regarding migration to future technical solutions, as this is not a technical problem that is being discussed in the resolutions.

Thomas Narten commented on the extensive work the Equivalent Strings Working Group had done on the issue over the past weeks, and have had to address a lot of the public discussion on the topic, including the imprecision of terminology in this area that are critical to address. This has to be followed up on, working with experts and not just experts from the technical community. Thomas noted his belief that the resolutions address the most critical issues raised during the public comment period, as well as the continued need to agree on the terminology.

Suzanne Woolf indicated that it might be appropriate to go through a proposed resolution to address future policy work, as it is closely related and shows the working group’s analysis of the issue. Suzanne noted that she did not think that there was any opposition to the pragmatics of approving the two applications, and echoed Thomas’ concern that follow-up work must be done. Therefore, the working group requests that it continue in some form, and proceed to wider discussion on where technical issues and policy intertwine to reach resolution of problems such as the one created. Suzanne confirmed that the working group was proposing resolutions to resolve the immediate issue posed by the two applications, and then setting up the framework to progress discussions of this type.

Mike Silber congratulated the working group on their work and the logical split between the resolutions. Mike noted his concern with the extension of the mandate of the working group and the impact on Board members to take on this additional ongoing work, which could be shared with the community.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised a question regarding the language of the resolution, and Dennis confirmed there would be a final careful edit performed.

Dennis then reviewed a proposed resolution regarding the need for the CEO to develop a more detailed strategy and plan to develop solutions to issues discussed within the working group, and reconstituting the Equivalent Strings Working Group into a “Variant TLD” working group to oversee further staff work and community consultations on this issue.

The Chair noted Mike’s concern relating to the shifting of workload to Board members as identified in the resolution just presented.

Dennis noted that the working group carefully chose the word “oversee” to address that issue, and the work would be done by the staff and community.

Bruce noted that he would not vote in favor of the resolution creating the new working group, as it would be more appropriate to request the appropriate parts of the community to form a group.

The Chair noted his agreement with Bruce, and his concern with Directors running such a working group instead of putting it into the hands of the community.

Dennis and Bruce noted that IDNs will also be part of the new gTLD program, and Bruce noted that this is further support for having the Supporting Organizations form the relevant group to do this work.

The Chair inquired as to if the Board approved the two resolutions relating to specific applications, wouldn’t it be the appropriate time for this issue to be handed on?

Dennis suggested that the working group come back with a better-crafted resolution, as there is a need for a Board working group on this, though it has to be clear that the Board would only be involved in an oversight role. Dennis withdrew the resolution from Board consideration at this time.

      1. CNNIC Request for (Simplified and Traditional Chinese) IDN ccTLDs

Mike Silber then moved, and George Sadowsky seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) has requested the simultaneous delegation of . 中国 ( xn--fiqs8S) and . 中國 ( xn--fiqz9S) ;

Whereas, CNNIC has met the existing Fast Track requirements and rules for String Evaluation of the requested IDN ccTLDs, including the DNS security and stability evaluation;

Whereas, an issue has arisen around the delegation and management of domains that reflect parallel uses of "Simplified" and "Traditional" character-renderings and orthographies for the Chinese language communities, and thus CNNIC is requesting delegation of this pair of IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, CNNIC has a significant depth of experience with the registration of strings containing variants as domain names at second and lower levels under principles discussed in RFC 4713 (<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4713.txt> - Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names - October 2006), with the delegation and management of domains that are expected to reflect parallel uses of "Simplified" and "Traditional" character-renderings and orthographies for Chinese, and can point to good management experience and good user experience with this methodology, and have stated that they have the necessary competence and experience to operate the pair of IDN ccTLDs in a stable manner;

Whereas, there is general and wide community support for the notion of simultaneously delegating this particular requested pair of IDN ccTLDs to meet the well understood needs of users of Chinese, namely that users accessing a domain expect that the traditional and simplified Chinese names have been assigned to the same registrant, and that such delegations would solve a significant problem for the user communities;

Whereas, public comment makes it clear that the methodology for operation and management of IDN ccTLDs based on such parallel strings can only be achieved today through operational and administrative procedures, as there are no DNS protocol mechanisms yet that provide the desired behavior, which procedures must be handled by the local IDN ccTLD manager;

Whereas, the delegation of these IDN ccTLDs would be an extension to the current published IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process;

Whereas, the ICANN Board on 12 March 2010 resolved on a set of “Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the specific requests related to the Fast Track Process”;

Whereas, after public comment and general consultation with the technical community, it became apparent that some of the ideas expressed and words used in the Principles were found to be confusing and imprecise – e.g. “Equivalent” and “Synchronized” IDN ccTLDs – and that thisterminology made it difficult to evaluate important aspects of the Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, themethodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle these particular instances of parallelIDNccTLDs is, in the short-term, the only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be pursued;

Whereas, significantanalysis and possibly development work should continue on both policy-based and technical elements of a solution for the introduction on a more general basis of strings containing variants as TLDs;

Therefore, it isRESOLVED, (2010.04.22.10), that CNNIC be notified that the . 中国 (xn--fiqs8S)and . 中國 (xn--fiqz9S)IDN ccTLD request has completed the Fast Track String Evaluation and that they may enter the String Delegation step in the Fast Track Process, using the standard IANA ccTLD delegation function, and that delegation is contingent on completion of the IANA process criteria and publication of CNNIC's detailed Implementation Plan to be finalized in consultation with ICANN.

The resolution was approved unanimously by a vote of 15-0.

      1. TWNIC Request for (Simplified and Traditional Chinese) IDN ccTLDs

Dennis Jennings then moved, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, the Taiwan Network Information Center (TWNIC) has requested the simultaneous delegation of . 台灣 (xn--kpry57d)and . 台湾 (xn--kprw13d) ;

Whereas, TWNIC has met the existing Fast Track requirements and rules for String Evaluation of the requested IDN ccTLDs, including the DNS security and stability evaluation;

Whereas, an issue has arisen around the delegation and management of domains that reflect parallel uses of "Simplified" and "Traditional" character-renderings and orthographies for the Chinese language communities, and thus TWNIC is requesting delegation of this pair of IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, TWNIC has a significant depth of experience with the registration of strings containing variants as domain names at second and lower levels under principles discussed in RFC 4713 (<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4713.txt> - Registration and Administration Recommendations for Chinese Domain Names - October 2006), with the delegation and management of domains that are expected to reflect parallel uses of "Simplified" and "Traditional" character-renderings and orthographies for Chinese, and can point to good management experience and good user experience with this methodology, and have stated that they have the necessary competence and experience to operate the pair of IDN ccTLDs in a stable manner;

Whereas, there is general and wide community support for the notion of simultaneously delegating this particular requested pair of IDN ccTLDs to meet the well understood needs of users of Chinese, namely that users accessing a domain expect that the traditional and simplified Chinese names have been assigned to the same registrant, and that such delegations would solve a significant problem for the user communities;

Whereas, public comment makes it clear that the methodology for operation and management of IDN ccTLDs based on such parallel strings can only be achieved today through operational and administrative procedures, as there are no DNS protocol mechanisms yet that provide the desired behavior, which procedures must be handled by the local IDN ccTLD manager;

Whereas, the delegation of these IDN ccTLDs would be an extension to the current published IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process;

Whereas, the ICANN Board on 12 March 2010 resolved on a set of “Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the specific requests related to the Fast Track Process”;

Whereas, after public comment and general consultation with the technical community, it became apparent that some of the ideas expressed and words used in the Principles were found to be confusing and imprecise – e.g. “Equivalent” and “Synchronized” IDN ccTLDs – and that thisterminology made it difficult to evaluate important aspects of the Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, themethodology to be taken by the IDN ccTLD manager to handle these particular instances of parallelIDNccTLDs is, in the short-term, the only option available, but there are serious limits to where such an approach is viable in practice, so that it cannot be viewed as a general solution, and that consequently, long-term development work should be pursued;

Whereas, significantanalysis and possibly development work should continue on both policy-based and technical elements of a solution for the introduction on a more general basis of strings containing variants as TLDs;

Therefore, it is RESOLVED, (2010.04.22.11), thatTWNIC be notified that . 台灣 (xn--kpry57d)and . 台湾 (xn--kprw13d) IDN ccTLD request has completed the Fast Track String Evaluation and that they may enter the String Delegation step in the Fast Track Process, using the standard IANA ccTLD delegation function, and that delegation is contingent on completion of the IANA process criteria and publication of TWNIC's detailed Implementation Plan to be finalized in consultation with ICANN.

The resolution was approved unanimously by a vote of 15-0.

Both resolutions were passed on the basis of the Equivalent Strings Working Group performing final edits to the language, and with agreement that no substance of the resolutions would change.

John Jeffrey reminded the working group that all edits to the resolution had to be finalized in sufficient time to meet the 48-hour window for posting the meeting’s resolutions, and noted that if possible, staff would like to post the resolutions well in advance of the deadline.

    1. DNS Cert

Thomas Narten inquired of management relating to the response to community feedback on the status of work relating to DNS Cert. The CEO responded that it’s clear that the community is opposed to ICANN taking an operation role on DNS Cert.

Greg Rattray noted agreement with Thomas that ICANN needs to show that it has heard the voice of the community and provide perspective on the way forward.

Dennis Jennings noted his support for the DNS Cert proposal in general, and his concern that it should be progressed in a way that ICANN is not perceived as taking charge.

Janis Karklins noted his sense that this issue should be considered in Brussels to allow for community engagement, as the community is not in support of rushing forward with operational activities.

The CEO concurred with Janis’ statement on the community perception of the urgency of this work, and that it can be pushed to Brussels or later. The CEO noted his personal opinion that from a security standpoint, there is great urgency for this work, but in terms of ICANN processes and the community process, it can be pushed back.

The Chair noted his concern with the receipt of the paper and the community perception that ICANN is taking an operational role. The CEO clarified that ICANN never proposed that it take an operational role, and it is important to be accurate on this point to note that the paper is proposing a bottom-up consultation, and does not assert that ICANN is trying to take an operational role in this.

Greg confirmed that the papers provided for public consultation did not place ICANN in an operational role. Greg confirmed that there would be a summary of the comments received, with a clear statement of the path forward, including a slower consultation process on the concept.

Thomas noted that ICANN has to be aware of the trust issue from the community that may have resulted in the misperception that ICANN stated it would take an operational role.

Ray Plzak urged his colleagues on the Board who are representative of or selected from the technical communities to encourage further involvement in this debate, and not solely rely on ICANN announcements to initiate such involvement.

Dennis urged his colleagues on the Board to convey the clarifications of the issue as provided by Greg and the CEO.

    1. New gTLDs
      1. Reporting performance against new Project Plan

Kurt Pritz provided an update to the Board on the status of the new Project Plan, and the work for approximately 20 deliverables to be published in advance of the Brussels meeting, many embedded within the 4 th version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Kurt discussed the remaining open issues, including the proposed Registry Agreement, trademark issues, geographical names and variant management issues.

Kurt forecasted that the work of the GNSO on vertical integration would extend past the publication of the 4 th version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the high security zone program, one of the nine efforts on malicious conduct, will extend past the 4 th version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, and Kurt noted that the program could be launched without that item reaching conclusion. Kurt also identified the root scaling study and aspects of the economic study will continue past guidebook 4.

Kurt then provided an update on the work on operational readiness, including the interviewing of evaluation panels and agreements with service providers, and the identification of multiple providers to address conflicts of interest.

On trademark issues, Kurt reported that that work proposed is essentially done. After Nairobi, there are no changes to the Uniform Rapid Suspension. Changes were made to the clearinghouse to address the Board direction in Nairobi. On post-delegation dispute resolution, staff has had meetings with some constituencies, and is likely to get to resolution on the issues by Brussels.

On vertical integration, Kurt reported on the status of the working group of the GNSO.

The Chair inquired of Kurt if there was anything arising in the public consultations that would cause the Board to change the approach it adopted in Nairobi on the Uniform Rapid Suspension or clearinghouse.

Kurt noted that from a preliminary review of the comment, there is nothing that would cause a change in position on those topics.

The Chair urged Kurt to publish the comments as quickly as possible and close those issues, and to be clear on how the working group work on vertical integration will interplay with the draft of the guidebook: if they finish in time, it can be included, otherwise, they are working on a long term solution.

Kurt reported that the 4 th version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook would be published three weeks before the Brussels meeting and would be open for public comment for 45 days. Staff will then issue an opinion on the public comment, and the changes needed between the 4 th version and an anticipated final version of the guidebook.

The Chair then requested an update on the economic study that was commissioned, and Kurt responded that the work has been ongoing since December 2009 and would work to have the second phase of the economists’ work completed in advance of Brussels.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat inquired as to the global publication of calls for interest for evaluation panel providers. Kurt noted he would provide Jean-Jacques with a brief review of the process, and confirmed that the new procurement guidelines requiring advertisements in all geographic regions were followed.

The Chair requested that Kurt provide discussion on the communications plan. Kurt noted that the communications plan has not been formally launched yet, and while no date was set, it would be after the Brussels meeting.

The Chair then raised the subject of the root zone scaling work and when that would be completed.

Ram Mohan reported that the study is yet to be completed and that neither the RSSAC nor the SSAC have issued a definitive response to the Board request on this topic. Ram noted that more gaps in analysis have been identified, as opposed to bridging of the gaps. The SSAC is preparing to place two proposals in front of the Board relating to significant gaps, including an end-user impact study. Ram noted that there is not consensus between the RSSAC and SSAC on providing an opinion regarding whether there will be a problem with root scaling. Particularly within the SSAC, there’s a sense that there’s not enough data available.

The Chair stated that this was the third year of the project and expressed frustration on the identification of unfilled gaps at this time.

Ram concurred and noted the significant effort that has been expended on this issue without much forward movement.

The Chair noted that more discussions need to occur on how to encourage an answer before the Board’s retreat in May.

Harald noted that the ccNSO concerns on geographic names need to be addressed properly.

The Chair concurred that there were questions that needed to be answered on this topic.

The Chair and Kurt briefly discussed the scheduling of some time with the Board to go over final issues necessary to get to approval of the final version of the guidebook, and agreed that more work will be done.

Jonne Soininen briefly raised the issue of the questions put to the Board by the working group on vertical integration. The Chair noted that as the working group has a “clean slate” to start with, detailed information on the meaning of the Board’s resolution was not required, and noted that Kurt could communicate that to them.

    1. May Retreat

Due to time constraints, the Chair indicated that this matter would be addressed online.

    1. UDRP

Due to time constraints, the Chair noted that there was more work to be done relating to the issue of exploring contractual relationships with providers, and no further discussion was had.

    1. Executive Session

The Board conducted an executive session, without staff present, in confidence.

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."