Skip to main content
Resources

Minutes | Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors | Singapore

A transcript of the meeting is posted at http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcripts-board-meeting-1-24jun11-en.txt [TXT, 88 KB].

A Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held on 24 June 2011 in Singapore at 11:00 am local time.

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: Rod Beckstrom (President and CEO), Steve Crocker (Vice Chairman), Sébastien Bachollet, Cherine Chalaby, Bertrand de la Chapelle, Rita Rodin Johnston, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Raymond A. Plzak, R. Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, Katim Touray, and Kuo-Wei Wu.

The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Heather Dryden, GAC Liaison; Ram Mohan, SSAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Reinhard Scholl, TLG Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison.

  1. Consent Agenda
  2. ATRT Recommendations
  3. Whois Review Team Budget for Consumer Research Study
  4. Renewal of .NET Agreement
  5. Internet Number Certification (RPKI) Program
  6. FY12 Operating Plan & Budget
  7. Report from Board-GAC Joint Working Group
  8. Issues arising from the Singapore Meeting
  9. Thanks to Rita Rodin-Johnston
  10. Thanks to Peter Dengate-Thrush
  1. Consent Agenda

    The Chair of the Board introduced the design of the agenda, including the use of the consent agenda, to the community and noted that any Board member could request the removal of items from the Consent Agenda.  The Chair confirmed that the Board has discussed each of the items prior to the meeting, all members understand the contents and have had the opportunity to remove any item from the consent agenda for placement on the full agenda if further discussion is required.  The matters on the consent agenda include approval of minutes, Bylaws amendments, approvals of processes and charters, thanks to meeting hosts and scribes, and others.

    The Chair then moved and the George Sadowsky seconded the following resolutions:

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

    1.1. Approval of Minutes of 21 April 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting

    Resolved (2011.06.24.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 21 April 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting.

    1.2. Approval of ALAC-Related Bylaw Amendments

    Whereas, on 9 June 2009, the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en.pdf> [PDF, 270 KB] was published, including a recommendation to amend the ICANN Bylaws to reflect the continuing purpose of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) within ICANN.

    Whereas, on 26 June 2009, the Board resolved (2009.06.26.30) that all recommendations (except for the allocation of two voting Directors to At-Large) presented in the Final Report [PDF, 270 KB]could be implemented, as recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC).

    Whereas, the ICANN Office of the General Counsel, in consultation with the ALAC and At-Large staff, drafted the proposed revisions to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the ALAC necessary to reflect the continuing purpose of the ALAC as described in the Final Report [PDF, 270 KB].

    Whereas, on 18 March 2011, the Board directed (2011.03.18.37) the ICANN CEO to post the proposed Bylaw revisions for public comment.

    Whereas, the proposed revisions were posted for public comment <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08apr11-en.htm> for a period of 30 days, from 8 April through 9 May 2011, and no relevant comments were received.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.02), the Board approves the revisions to the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI, Section 4.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.02

    The revision of the ICANN Bylaws regarding the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in fulfillment of the recommendations arising out of the organizational review of the ALAC and is the culmination of community work and consultation on this issue. There is no anticipated fiscal impact from this decision. There will be no impact on the security, stability, and resilience of the Domain Name System (DNS) as a result of this action.

    1.3. Approval of ccNSO Review Implementation Plan

    Whereas, on 21 April 2011, the Board resolved to direct ICANN Staff, in coordination with the Structural Improvements Committee, to develop a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the Final Report of the ccNSO Review Board Working Group and to submit these to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval. (Resolution 2011.04.21.06).

    Whereas, at its 18 June 2011 meeting, the SIC acknowledged receipt from staff of an implementation plan, titled "ccNSO Improvements Implementation Project Plan", dated 9 June 2011, and resolved to recommend it to the ICANN Board for approval.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.03), the Board requests ICANN's CEO to direct Staff to proceed with implementation in accordance with the implementation plan document "ccNSO Improvements Implementation Project Plan" dated 9 June 2011 <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ccnso/ccnso-improvements-implementation-project-plan-09jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 253 KB].

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.03:

    This action is in direct response to a request from the Board and serves to enable the implementation of the ccNSO review outcomes in a timely manner, thereby realizing the foreseen and agreed process improvements. There is no reason to delay this action as it, per se, does not involve any complex structural changes and would have no budgetary consequences. There will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

    1.4. Approval of Permanent Charter for GNSO's Commercial Stakeholders Group

    Whereas, on July 30, 2009 the Board approved a transitional Charter for the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group.

    Whereas, the Board directed the CSG to subsequently develop a permanent Charter document.

    Whereas, the CSG leadership has collaborated closely with ICANN Staff and has now produced a permanent Charter document developed and approved by the CSG community and that document has been presented to the ICANN community for review and comment.

    Whereas, the Board Structural Improvements Committee recommends approval of the permanent CSG Charter.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.04), the Board approves the permanent Charter of the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholders Group. The CSG is directed to publicly post its charter and to maintain a process for publicly posting subsequent amended versions of the document. To assure continued adherence to the ICANN Bylaws principles, the Board will re-examine the CSG charter, structure and operations consistent with the timetable for the next independent review of the GNSO.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.04:

    The approval of this permanent charter documents satisfies the original Board direction in Resolution 2009.30.07.09 by establishing a permanent Charter for the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group. This action provides a degree of certainty and finality regarding the community debate over the relationship between Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups in the GNSO in that it affirms the ability of individual communities to establish and manage processes and procedures – consistent with existing ICANN Bylaws principles - that allows them to govern and expand their participation in GNSO policy development efforts in a manner best suited to their individual communities. There are no particular additional budget implications for approving the CSG Charter. This action does not have any technical impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

    1.5. Proposal for a Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency in the GNSO

    Whereas, the Board has specifically directed that efforts be made to provide leadership and guidance within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group to encourage the creation of broad, diverse and representative new GNSO Constituencies advancing global non-commercial interests.

    Whereas, the Board has received a formal petition for the creation of a Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) within the GNSO.

    Whereas, the NPOC proposal has been subjected to a two-phase, public process that was instituted as part of the GNSO Improvements Review.

    Whereas, staff conducted a Public Comment Forum giving community members the opportunity to review and comment upon the proposed NPOC Charter and the comments submitted in that proceeding were consistently favorable regarding the NPOC proposal.

    Whereas, this new GNSO Constituency will expand participation in GNSO policy development efforts by formally recognizing a vibrant new community that will represent the non-commercial perspective of not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations who are registrants and users of domain names.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.05), the Board approves the proposed charter of the new Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency and formally recognizes the organization as an official Constituency within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) eligible for formal GNSO administrative support and subject to the NCSG Charter approved by the Board.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.06), the Board thanks Debra Y. Hughes, appointed by the Board to the GNSO Council, for her leadership in helping to establish this new Constituency.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2011.06.24.05 – 2011.06.24.06

    The promotion of new GNSO Constituencies was one of the fundamental recommendations of the GNSO Review effort and an important intentional strategy to expand participation in GNSO policy development efforts. The approval of a new GNSO Constituency will impact the ICANN budget by increasing administrative support of community activities during ICANN Public meetings and throughout the year. This is within the parameters of the proposed FY12 budget and no substantial additional budget resources will be impacted by the approval of this new Constituency. This new additional organizational structure will not have any technical impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

    1.6. Approval of Permanent Charter for GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

    Whereas, on July 30, 2009 the Board approved a transitional Charter for the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).

    Whereas, the Board directed the NCSG to subsequently develop a permanent Charter document by the 2011 ICANN Annual General Meeting.

    Whereas, NCSG leaders and members of the Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) have collaborated on developing a Charter document that meets the strategic goals of the Board and provide a foundation for future governance and growth of the non commercial community in the GNSO; and that document has been presented to the ICANN community for review and comment.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.07), the Board approves the permanent Charter of the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group. NCSG leadership is directed to publicly post the Charters and to work with ICANN Staff to maintain a process for publicly posting any subsequent amended versions of the document. To assure continued adherence to the ICANN Bylaws principles, the Board will re-examine the NCSG Charter, structure and operations consistent with the timetable for the next independent review of the GNSO.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.08), all existing Constituencies within the NCSG (the Noncommercial Users Constituency and the NPOC) shall immediately demonstrate to the NCSG that they meet all membership requirements as imposed at Section 2.0 of the newly-adopted NCSG Charter, including the requirement at Section 2.3 that all members of the constituency should already either be members of the NCSG or be qualified for membership under the Charter. If a Constituency cannot demonstrate membership requirements, the NCSG is directed to (i) immediately implement the Constituency Review process set forth at Section 2.3.3 of the NCSG Charter, and (ii) such constituency will not be entitled to constituency participation in NCSG activities, effective immediately, until the earlier of such compliance can be demonstrated or the review process is concluded and a decision is reached.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2011.06.24.07 – 2011.06.24.08:

    The approval of this permanent charter documents satisfies the original Board direction in Resolution 2009.30.07.09 by establishing a permanent Charter for the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. This action provides a degree of certainty and finality regarding the community debate over the relationship between Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups in the GNSO in that it affirms the ability of individual communities to establish and manage processes and procedures – consistent with existing ICANN Bylaws principles - that allows them to govern and expand their participation in GNSO policy development efforts in a manner best suited to their individual communities.  This action will also allow the NCSG to assure adherence to its revised membership rules from the outset.  There are no particular additional budget implications for approving the NCSG Charter. This action does not have any technical impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

    1.7. Approval of New GNSO Constituency Recognition Process

    Whereas, the SIC identified a number of structural and process impediments in the existing procedures for evaluating proposals for new GNSO Constituencies.

    Whereas, the SIC has developed a replacement "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies" and Staff has completed an extended Public Comment Forum (closed 3 April 2011) regarding the proposed new process.

    Whereas, the SIC has thoroughly and carefully considered community feedback in the Public Comment Forum and incorporated a number of procedural changes and associated recommendations into the final process package.

    Whereas, the new process will:

    1. Optimize the considerable time and effort required to form, organize, and propose a new GNSO Constituency;
    2. Delegate more authority to each GNSO Stakeholder Group in evaluating new Constituency proposals while maintaining the Board's oversight role;
    3. Manage the entire process to a flexible, but specific and limited timeframe; and
    4. Provide a partial set of criteria for use during future periodic reviews of the GNSO.
    5. Whereas, the SIC recommends that the new process be approved and take effective immediately upon Board approval;

    Resolved (2011.06.24.09), the ICANN Board approves the new "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies" developed by the SIC and directs Staff to begin implementation effective immediately.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.09:

    The promotion of new GNSO Constituencies was one of the fundamental recommendations of the GNSO Review effort and an important strategy to expand participation in GNSO policy development efforts. The SIC found that the original process for evaluating new GNSO Constituency proposals was not effective because lack of objective and measurable criteria by which prospective new GNSO Constituencies were formally evaluated and recognized; and that general process weaknesses presented potential new Constituency prospects with considerable preparation work, indefinite time frames for Board review and general lack of guidance on their prospects for Board approval.

    This new process will accomplish four goals:

    1. Optimize the considerable time and effort required to form, organize, and propose a new GNSO Constituency by prescribing a streamlined sequence of steps and associated evaluation criteria that are objective, fair, and transparent - with ample opportunity for community input;
    2. Delegate more authority to each GNSO Stakeholder Group in evaluating new Constituency proposals while maintaining the Board's oversight role;
    3. Manage the entire process to a flexible, but specific and limited timeframe; and
    4. Provide a partial set of criteria for use during the periodic review of the GNSO.

    The approval of new GNSO Constituencies will impact the ICANN budget by increasing the overall resources and administrative support necessary to conduct the additional Constituency activities during ICANN Public meetings and throughout the year. No substantial additional budget resources, however, will be triggered by the approval of this new recognition process. If anything, this new process will make the evaluation of new GNSO Constituency proposals more efficient from a budget perspective. The new criteria articulated in the process may also make future independent review efforts of the GNSO more efficient. The new process does not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

    1.8. Changes to SSAC Membership – Appointment of Jason Livingood

    Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) does review its membership and make adjustments from time-to- time.

    Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on behalf of the SSAC, requests that the Board should appoint Jason Livingood to the SSAC.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.10), the Board appoints Jason Livingood to the SSAC.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.10:

    The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables the SSAC to fulfill its charter and execute its mission. Since its inception, the SSAC has invited individuals with deep knowledge and experience in technical and security areas that are critical to the security and stability of the Internet's domain name system.

    1.9. Changes to SSAC Membership – Thanks to Duncan Hart

    Whereas, Duncan Hart was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee on 26 June 2009.

    Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Duncan Hart for his service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.11), Duncan Hart has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Duncan Hart well in all future endeavours.

    1.10. Academia Representation on NomCom

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

    Whereas, despite attempts to identify a Selecting Entity, the Board has not defined the proper criteria to do so, 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, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) recommended and the Board approved seeking community input on an appropriate process for identifying a Selecting Entity and input was sought from the community. A public comment forum was opened from 30 April 2011 through 30 May 2011 <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30apr11-en.htm>.

    Whereas, the BGC has reviewed the public comment received, and determined that no viable process for identifying, selecting or evaluating a Selecting Entity was recommended by the community.

    Whereas, because no viable process has been identified, the BGC has recommended that the Board approve the deletion of the relevant Bylaws provision, subject to continued monitoring of academia representation on the NomCom.

    Whereas, if the academic sector becomes under-represented on the NomCom in the future, consideration should be given to the creation of a mechanism to ensure that academia has a continuing voice on the NomCom.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.12), the Board approves the deletion of Article VII, Section 2.8.c of the Bylaws.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.13), the Board directs the CEO to ensure that staff monitors the composition of future NomComs and periodically report to the BGC the staff findings as to academia representation among the NomCom delegates.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2011.06.24.12 – 2011.06.24.13:

    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). See Article VII, section 2.8.c. 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 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.

    After attempting to develop criteria, the BGC determined that community input should be sought. The BGC further recommended that if the community failed to suggest a method for identifying, selecting and evaluating a Selecting Entity then the relevant Bylaws provision should be deleted. A public comment forum was opened, but no viable process for identifying, selecting or evaluating a Selecting Entity was recommended by the community. While one party did make a suggestion of a few entities that could serve as the Selecting Entity, there was no process identified to inform how that selection could be made. Another party suggested staying a decision on the Bylaws provision pending the potential development of an academia constituency, which might be the right group to identify a Selecting Entity. However, there are no pending constituency petitions proposing to form such a group.

    The Board has determined that as no process for identifying, selecting or evaluating a Selecting Entity has been identified, the relevant Bylaws provision should be deleted, subject to continued monitoring to ensure there is academia representation on the NomCom. 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.

    Deleting this NomCom Bylaws provision will have an extremely minor financial impact on ICANN and will have no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

    1.11. March 2012 ICANN Meeting in Latin America

    Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its first Meeting for 2012 in the Latin America region as per its policy.

    Whereas, the Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Costa Rica submitted a viable proposal to serve as host for the ICANN 2012 Latin America Meeting.

    Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Costa Rica proposal and finds it acceptable.

    Whereas, the Board Finance Committee will review and is expected to approve the budget for the ICANN 2012 Latin America Meeting as proposed in this paper on 14 June 2011.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.14), the Board accepts the proposal of the Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Costa Rica and approves that the ICANN 2012 Latin America Meeting shall be held in San Jose, Costa Rica from 11-16 March 2012, with a budget not to exceed US$2.29M.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.14:

    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. Meeting Number 43, scheduled for 11-16 March 2012, is to occur in the Latin America geographic region. A call for recommendations for the location of the meeting in Latin America was posted on 25 April 2011. A number of proposals were received including from Academia Nacional de Ciencias, the .cr TLD administrator, Costa Rica – San Jose.

    The Board reviewed Staff's recommendation for hosting the meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica 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. There is no impact on the security or the stability of the DNS due to the hosting of the meeting.

    1.12. June 2012 ICANN Meeting in Europe

    Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its second Meeting for 2012 in the Europe region as per its policy.

    Whereas, CZ.NIC, Czech Republic submitted a viable proposal to serve as host for the ICANN 2012 Europe Meeting.

    Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the CZ.NIC, Czech Republic proposal and finds it acceptable.

    Whereas, the Board Finance Committee will review and is expected to approve the budget for the ICANN 2012 Europe Meeting as proposed in this paper on 14 June 2011.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.15), the Board accepts the proposal of CZ.NIC, Czech Republic and approves that the ICANN 2012 Europe Meeting shall be held in Prague, Czech Republic from 24-29 June 2012, with a budget not to exceed US$2.268M.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.15:

    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. Meeting Number 44, scheduled for 24-29 June 2012, is to occur in the Europe geographic region. A call for recommendations for the location of the meeting in Europe was posted on 25 April 2011. A number of proposals were received, including from CZ.NIC, Czech Republic – Prague.

    The Board reviewed Staff's recommendation for hosting the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic 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. There is no impact on the security or the stability of the DNS due to the hosting of the meeting.

    The Board thanks all who recommended sites for ICANN Meeting Number 44.

    1.13. Thanks to Departing At-Large Volunteers

    Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills that members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process.

    Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service on Sponsoring Organizations and Advisory Committees end.

    Whereas, three members of the At-Large leadership have left their positions since the Silicon Valley meeting:

    • Dr. Olivier M.J. Crépin-Leblond,  EURALO Secretary - June 2010 to June 2011
    • Andrés Piazza, LACRALO Chair - March 2009 through July 2011.
    • Prof. Hong Xue - APRALO Chair - 22 June 2010 through 30 March 2011

    Resolved (2011.06.24.16), Dr. Olivier M.J. Crépin-Leblond , Andrés Piazza and Prof. Hong Xue have earned the deep appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board wishes them well in their future endeavors.

    1.14. Thanks to Sponsors

    Verisign, Neustar, .ORG, The Public Interest Registry, Afilias Limited, InterNetX, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), GMO Registry, Inc., CORE Internet Council of Registrars, AusRegistry International, Siter.com, IP Mirror Group, Registry Services Corporation, Community.asia, united-domains AG, Internet Systems Consortium (ISC), SIDN, Iron Mountain, ironDNS, and JSU RU-CENTER.

    1.15. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams

    The Board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, the interpreters, technical teams, and to the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting.

    The Board would also like to thank Canaan Lam, Conference Services Manager, and the entire management and staff of The Fairmont Singapore and Swissôtel the Stamford, Raffles City Convention Centre.

    1.16. Thanks to Local Hosts

    The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizers, Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore (iDA) and The Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd (SGNIC).

    1.17. Thanks to Meeting Participants

    Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of participants at the meetings.

    Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog at this meeting.

    Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.

    Resolutions 2011.06.24.01, 201103.18.02, 2011.06.24.03, 2011.06.24.04, 2011.06.24.05, 2011.06.24.06, 2011.06.24.07, 2011.06.24.08, 2011.06.24.09, 2011.06.24.10, 2011.06.24.11, 2011.06.24.12, 2011.06.24.13, 2011.06.24.14, 2011.06.24.15, and 2011.06.24.16 were approved in a single vote approving the consent agenda items.  All Board members present unanimously approved these resolutions.

  2. ATRT Recommendations

    The Chair introduced this agenda item noting that it’s Board’s response to the recommendations from the Accountability and Transparency Review team.  The Chair noted that considerable discussion occurred in Singapore on this issue.

    Steve Crocker then moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments reinforced ICANN’s commitment to ensuring accountability, transparency, and the interests of global Internet users, and called for a community review of ICANN’s execution of these commitments, to be acted upon by 30 June 2011.

    Whereas, ICANN has committed to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to assure that the outcomes of its decision making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders.

    Whereas, ICANN has committed to review the execution of its commitments.

    Whereas, implementing the recommendations of that review will strengthen ICANN's self-regulating, global, multi-stakeholder model that is transparent, accountable, and operates in the public interest.

    Whereas, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) received the Board’s gratitude for conducting this review and providing a Final Report with 27 recommendations to improve ICANN.

    Whereas, designated Board committees and the Board/GAC Joint Working Group considered the ATRT Recommendations and provided the Board with recommendations on Board action. The designated committees are incorporating implementation oversight into their work plans.

    Whereas, transparent and regular reporting to the community on the status of the implementation work is an essential component of enhancing ICANN’s accountability and transparency, and reporting on the current work is available at <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/atrt-report-recommendations-project-list-22jun11-en.pdf> [PDF, 873 KB], and will continue to be available at <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm>.

    Whereas, implementation of Recommendation No. 5 with respect to Board compensation requires an independent study and review. The Board Governance Committee has requested the CEO and the General Counsel to facilitate the next step in consideration of ATRT Recommendation No. 5, including identification of a committee of independent, non-directors to review whether Board member compensation is appropriate and, if so, with assistance from independent compensation experts to determine the levels of such compensation.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.17), the Board accepts all remaining ATRT Recommendations and directs the CEO to proceed with their implementation. For recommendations focusing on enhancing the relationship between the GAC and the Board, the Board will recommend coordinated activities between the Board and the GAC to oversee implementation.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.18), the CEO is directed to regularly report to  the community and the Board on the status of implementation.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.19), the CEO is directed to provide the Board with a proposal for metrics and benchmarks to evaluate ICANN’s achievement of enhanced accountability and transparency.

    The CEO seconded the Resolution.

    Bruce Tonkin provided some further information on the recommendations that are being examined by the Board Governance Committee, to provide the community some insight into the approach for managing and monitoring implementation. Bruce noted that the different committees may take different approaches, however the BGC decided to divide the recommendations into three categories: (1) already implemented; (2) items to incorporate into standard operating procedures; and (3) items that need further investigation and planning.  For each of the recommendations, the BGC assigned a Board lead to work closely with staff.

    Bruce then shared the leads: Recommendations 1 and 2, 6 and 7 will be lead by Ray Plzak.  Ram Mohan will lead Recommendation 3.  Cherine Chalaby will lead on Recommendation 4, 5, and 20.  Bill Graham will take the lead on the recommendations regarding ICANN’s accountability mechanisms.

    Recommendation 8, regarding the redaction of Board materials, has been completed and the explanatory document is available on the website.  Recommendation 19, on the translation of Board materials, has already started to be incorporated into ICANN procedures.

    For Recommendation 5, on Board member compensation, Bruce noted the need for the Board to obtain appropriate independent advice, and that the General Counsel’s office will be active in that work.

    Bruce confirmed that the Board takes the recommendations very seriously, and invited the community to provide input to the relevant Board members on topics that are of interest.

    Bertrand de La Chapelle noted the import of the timing of the receipt of the ATRT report, as community interaction was ongoing regarding the new gTLD program.  Particularly between the Board and the GAC, many of the recommendations have already been put into some sort of practice, and there will be the ability to review what has already occurred to consider how to best move forward.  The experiences of the past few months should be integrated into the work to implement the ATRT recommendations.

    Mike Silber provided an update on the work of the Public Participation Committee to oversee implementation on recommendations 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 regarding public comment processes and provision of information to make the community aware of policy-making activities.  Significant changes will be made to web pages, templates and document formats to address the recommendations and enhance transparency.  Mike reported that a focus group is being consulted on changes to public comment cycles.  Mike noted the challenges still to come in addressing the complicated issues, including the years of research that have been undertaken for other input processes, such as the Administrative Procedures Act in the United States, and that improvements will come through a series of refinements already underway.

    The Chair commented on the strategic importance of the ATRT work.  At the end of the Joint Project Agreement, ICANN moved from a system of reporting to the United States Government to reporting to the community as a whole and being accountable to the community as a whole.  The review processes, and checking ICANN’s performance against its commitments, is an integral part of this accountability.  The Board’s adoption of the community’s recommendations is a sign of strength in the accountability model.

    The Chair noted that this is an historic motion.  He congratulated the review team for bringing the recommendations and the community for their work in the process, and the Board and all who will work on the implementation. The Board’s acceptance of the recommendations is an extraordinary position and the Board is delighted to do so.

    The Board then took the following action:

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolutions 2011.06.24.17 – 2011.06.24.19.

    Rationale for Resolutions 2011.06.24.17 – 2011.06.24.19:

    As required by the Affirmation of Commitments, the recommendations resulting from the ATRT were provided to the Board on 31 December 2010 and posted for public comment. The ATRT provided a constructive report that validates and builds upon ICANN’s commitments and improvements. The Board encouraged and considered input from the community, including the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and the Nominating Committee, and is awaiting input from the Joint Working Group and the Governmental Advisory Committee. The public comments were supportive of the ATRT report and Staff’s due diligence resulted in advice that ICANN move forward with implementation of all 27 of the ATRT’s recommendations with the exception of Recommendation No. 5 relating to Board Compensation. For Recommendation No. 5 staff recommends that the Board approve the completion of an appropriate review of Board compensation, following relevant laws and restrictions on non-profit organizations. Staff provided proposed plans that demonstrated ICANN’s ability to implement the recommendations and estimated resource costs. The Board has concluded that ICANN should move forward on implementation plans for the 27 recommendations, noting that each plan has an estimated budget and implementation timeline and will be carried out under Board, GAC, NomCom, and community leadership. The Board also has concluded that appropriate review of Board compensation is needed as discussed for Recommendation No. 5, following relevant laws and restrictions on non-profit organizations.

    The Board finds that these recommendations: have the potential to advance ICANN’s transparency and accountability objectives, which are articulated in the Affirmation and ICANN’s bylaws; can be implemented by ICANN (with resource allocation); and do not appear to negatively impact the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. The Board has asked Staff to work with affected organizations to execute the implementation plans, and notes that ICANN has already made progress on implementation of several operational changes called for by the ATRT.

    The Board agrees with Staff’s assessment that the ATRT recommendation for a compensation scheme for voting Board Directors should be supported to allow for appropriate consideration following relevant laws and restrictions on non-profit organizations. Due to the complexity of this issue and the multiple planning and consideration stages it involves, additional effort is required to confirm whether full implementation is feasible and appropriate.
    Finally, in order to evaluate ICANN’s execution of commitments to "maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency," and effectively measure ICANN’s ability to improve elements that support these objectives, specific assessment mechanisms are needed. The Board has asked Staff to develop metrics and benchmarks for consideration. Without agreement on clear, measurable actions, future transparency and accountability improvement efforts and assessments could be hampered.

    Upon receipt of the Final Report, ICANN initiated significant planning work towards implementation, and to the extent possible, operational-related items (such as assuring regular provision of translations of Board Resolutions) were immediately implemented and incorporated into staff procedures. The Board committee involvement in review of the recommendations and proposed implementation plans has resulted in further direction and refinement of the implementation plans, and in better assessing the timeframes within which the recommendations can be implemented.

    The acceptance of the ATRT recommendations has a large financial impact on ICANN, as significant resources will have to be allocated to sufficiently meet the recommendations. ICANN staff has carefully considered the resource impacts, and provided budgetary information to the Board.

  3. Whois Review Team Budget for Consumer Research Study

    Mike Silber moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, the Whois Review Team has determined that it needs to "undertake a consumer research study . . . to evaluate the effectiveness of WHOIS policy and its implementation as it relates to promoting consumer trust."

    Whereas, the Board wants to remind the community that the following Whois studies are currently under way: (i) a Whois "misuse" study with a budget of approximately US$150,000, (ii) a Whois registrant identification study with a budget of approximately US$150,000, (iii) a Whois Proxy and Privacy "Abuse" study with a budget of approximately US$150,000; and (iv) a Whois Proxy and Privacy & Relay Study with a budget of approximately US$80,000.

    Whereas, the Whois Review Team has determined such a consumer study must be undertaken by a third party with expertise in the area.

    Whereas, the Whois Review Team has determined that such a study shall cost no more than US$125,000.

    Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board approve the budget allocation requested by the WHOIS Review Team, not to exceed US$125,000./

    Resolved (2011.06.24.20), the Board approves a budget allocation not to exceed US$125,000 for purposes of engaging a third party to undertake a research study to evaluate the effectiveness of WHOIS policy and its implementation as it relates to promoting consumer trust.

    R. Ramaraj seconded the resolution.

    Rita Rodin Johnston commented on the costs to the community for the Whois studies that are already ongoing, and the community dialogue about budgets and travel support and volunteer fatigue, while the Board is now approving additional funds for another Whois study.  Rita noted that one of her goals when she expressed interest in joining the Board was to finalize Whois issues, and as she’s leaving, another study is commencing.  To date, the issue has ended in deadlock.  There could be some issues that are impassable, and there has to be a compromise.  While it’s fine to do this study, it’s been six years, and it’s time to look at the information from the studies and figure out a way forward.

    Bruce Tonkin commented that the cost of Whois studies is approximately US$655,000.  Over the week, the community conversation was focused on the issue of whether resources are being used in the best possible way.  One of the ways to meet that objective is to look at the needs of the overall community and optimize the total spend.  ICANN has to avoid repeating the same work in different forums, which is why the Board drafted the whereas clauses as it did.  Bruce noted that this allows the community to see in total the resources allocated to Whois and to encourage feedback to get the most effective results.
    The Board then took the following action:

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolution 2011.06.24.20.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.20:

  4. The Affirmation of Commitments calls for a periodic, community review of WHOIS policy and "its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." The Whois Review Team appointed under the Affirmation requested funds to commission professional research to enable the Team to evaluate the effectiveness of WHOIS policy and its implementation as it relates to promoting consumer trust.  The Board has provided these funds, as requested, to support the Team's independent review effort.

  5. Renewal of .NET Agreement

    Katim Touray moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, the current .NET Registry Agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2011.

    Whereas, Section 4.2 of the current .NET Registry Agreement provides that the Agreement shall be renewed upon the expiration of the initial term so long as certain requirements are met, and that upon renewal, in the event that certain terms of this Agreement are not similar to the terms generally in effect in the Registry Agreements of the five largest gTLDs (determined by the number of domain name registrations under management at the time of renewal), renewal shall be upon terms reasonably necessary to render the terms of this Agreement similar to such terms in the Registry Agreements for those other gTLDs.

    Whereas, the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring the .NET Registry Agreement into line with other comparable agreements (e.g. BIZ, COM, INFO, ORG), including modifications to terms such as traffic data, limitation of liability, indemnification, assignment, and notice provisions.

    Whereas, ICANN commenced a public comment period on the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement on 11 April 2011 (see, <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm>) that was open through 10 May 2011.

    Whereas, ICANN received 186 comments addressing subjects such as the renewal of the agreement in general, the process for competition review of new registry services, rights protection mechanisms, use of traffic data, the new provisions with respect to special programs for registrars in underserved geographies, registry fees and registration pricing and a summary and analysis of the comments was prepared.

    Whereas, the .NET agreement provides for a US$0.75 registry-level transaction fee, and ICANN has used the funds to support developing country  Internet communities to participate in ICANN, enhancing security and stability of the DNS, and for general operating funds. ICANN commits to provide annual reporting on the use of these funds from .NET transaction fees.

    Whereas, additional changes were made in response to public comment.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.21), the .NET Registry Agreement is approved, and the CEO and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement as so revised.

    Bruce Tonkin seconded the resolution.

    The Board then took the following action:

    Fifteen Board members voted in favor of Resolution 2011.06.24.21.  Bertrand de La Chapelle abstained from voting.  The resolution carried.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.21:

    Why the Board is addressing the issue now?
    The .NET Registry Agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2011.

    What is the proposal being considered?
    In accordance with the renewal provisions of the current .NET Registry Agreement, the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement includes modified provisions to bring .NET into line with other comparable agreements (e.g. BIZ, COM, INFO, and ORG), including modifications to terms such as traffic data, limitation of liability, indemnification, assignment, and notice provisions. In addition to the changes to bring .NET into conformance with other agreements, Verisign has requested a change to give more flexibility for the registry to take action to prevent the registration of particular domain names when necessary in order to protect the security and stability of the DNS and the Internet – such as the actions that were taken by Verisign and other registries in coordination with ICANN in order to mitigate the threat from the Conficker virus. One other change to the agreement would give the registry operator more flexibility to offer training, technical support, marketing or incentive programs for the purpose of supporting the development of the Internet in underserved geographic regions.

    Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
    ICANN conducted a public comment period on the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement from 11 April 2011 through 10 May 2011, following which time the comments were summarized and analysed for Board review.

    What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
    Various members of the community raised the concerns summarized the accompanying analysis, including concerns with respect to the renewal of the agreement in general, the process for competition review of new registry services, rights protection mechanisms, use of traffic data, the new provisions with respect to special programs for registrars in underserved geographic regions, registry fees and registration pricing.

    What significant materials did the Board review?
    The Board reviewed the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement and its Appendices, as well as the summary of public comments and Staff’s response to those comments in Annex A.

    What factors the Board found to be significant?
    The Board carefully considered the public comments and the Staff recommendation with respect to those comments. While the Board considers the concerns with respect to the renewal provisions of the agreement and the registry fee and pricing mechanisms to be important, the Board determined that, on balance, those provisions are acceptable. The Board considered ICANN’s contractual obligations with respect to the current .NET Registry Agreement 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. The Board considered the public comments with respect to the new provision in the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement regarding the registry operator’s ability to offer training, technical support, marketing or incentive programs for the purpose of supporting the development of the Internet in underserved geographic regions. The Board determined that the stated intention of the provision was laudable but that the initially proposed content of the provision should be revised to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision and to provide greater safeguards against discriminatory treatment of registrars. The Board determined that the revised text agreed to by Verisign to address this change was a minor change and a beneficial change to the agreement, and that the agreement as revised should be approved. The revised text can be found in Annex B to this paper, and a redline of the final Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement can be found in Annex C to this paper.

    Are there positive or negative community impacts?
    Verisign has operated .NET very well, with no downtime, etc., and the community can expect that to continue.

    Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
    There are no fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN, the community, or the public if ICANN approves the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement. The provisions regarding registry-level fees and pricing constraints are consistent with the current .NET Registry Agreement.

    Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
    There are no security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if ICANN approves the Proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement.

  6. Internet Number Certification (RPKI) Program

    Kuo-Wei Wu moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, ICANN has made commitments to support Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) in the ICANN 2011-2014 Strategic Plan and the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability, and Resiliency (FY11).

    Whereas, ICANN has received requests from stakeholders for ICANN to operate the Global Trust Anchor (GTA) of the Internet Number Resource Certification System and to issue RPKI objects.

    Whereas, the IETF Secure Internet-Domain Routing (SIDR) working group has published several IETF standards documents that solidify the technology known as RPKI (as of this writing four documents are currently in the RFC Editor Queue, four have been approved for publication, and a further five await IESG action), and one of the documents approved for publication is a request for IANA to issue a number of RPKI objects.

    Whereas, the regional Internet registries have already constructed Internet Number Resource Certification systems based on the RPKI technology and have both trial and operational deployments.

    Whereas, technical, operational, and infrastructure elements must be deployed and implemented to support the GTA of the Internet Number Resource Certification system.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.22), the Board directs the CEO to take steps to prepare to implement and deploy an ICANN Global Trust Anchor for supporting RPKI objects and necessary support structures for implementing an Internet Number Resource Certification system.

    Ray Plzak seconded the resolution.

    The Board then took the following action:

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolution 2011.06.24.22.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.22:

  7. ICANN is responding to the expressed needs of the technical and Internet number resource communities for the establishment of a single authoritative trust anchor for RPKI, and that the trust anchor should be aligned with the existing number resource hierarchy. Approval of this proposal allows ICANN to fulfill specific requests from the IETF for issuing RPKI certification for unallocated and reserved Internet number resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System numbers).

  8. FY12 Operating Plan & Budget

    R. Ramaraj moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, on 18 March 2011, ICANN's Board approved an update to the Strategic Plan <http://www.icann.org/en/planning/>.

    Whereas, the Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb11-en.htm> was posted in February 2011 for community consultation, and was presented at the Silicon Valley ICANN International public meeting.

    Whereas, community consultations were held to discuss and obtain feedback on the initial Framework.

    Whereas, the draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may11-en.htm> was posted for public comment in accordance with the Bylaws on 17 May 2011, based upon the Framework for the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget, community consultation, and consultations with the Board Finance Committee <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ - op-budget-fy12>.

    Whereas, ICANN has actively solicited further community feedback and consultation with the ICANN community through online fora, conference calls, meetings in Singapore, and in the open forum in Singapore.

    Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee has discussed, and guided staff on, the development of the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget at each of its regularly scheduled meetings.

    Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee met in Singapore on 18 June 2011 and discussed the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget, and recommended that the Board adopt the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget.

    Whereas, the Board has heard comments from the community during the meetings in Singapore, the Board will make adjustments to the budget where appropriate in order to address the community's concerns.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.23), the Board adopts the FY12 Operating Plan and Budget <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy12-17may11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.22 MB].

    Gonzalo Navarro seconded the Resolution.

    Rita Rodin Johnston noted that the Board heard a lot of comments from the community about the budget and wanting more detail on how funds are spent.  Rita provided some information about the new software application being implemented in the Finance Department, called Great Plains.  It’s new financial accounting software that will improve the finance function in a number of ways.  Notably, it will allow ICANN to improve its reporting for forecasting, budget line item variance analysis and allow more robust departmental work.  It will also allow enhancements to external reporting.  This is the hope of the system, and improvements have been a long-term project.  Rita encouraged the SOs and ACs to provide more input on what types of reporting they’d like to see, as enabled by this new system.

    The Board then took the following action:

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolution 2011.06.24.23.

    Rationale for Resolution 2011.06.24.23:

  9. The Budget is being adopted pursuant to Article XVI, Section 4 of the ICANN Bylaws, which provides that "At least forty-five (45) days prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the President shall prepare and submit to the Board, a proposed annual budget of ICANN for the next fiscal year, which shall be posted on the Website. The proposed budget shall identify anticipated revenue sources and levels and shall, to the extent practical, identify anticipated material expense items by line item. The Board shall adopt an annual budget and shall publish the adopted Budget on the Website." The FY12 Operating Plan and Budget was developed through extensive community consultation, including at the ICANN public meetings in Silicon Valley and Singapore. Further detail on the rationale for the components of the budget are included in both within the budget and ICANN’s Strategic Plan.

  10. Report from Board-GAC Joint Working Group

    Ray Plzak introduced the resolution by thanking the members of the GAC who worked to develop the recommendations within the Joint Working Group report.  Ray noted that the resolution will dissolve the working group, but the work is not over – there is a lot more to do.  The Board and the GAC will continue to work together and with the community to bring the recommendations to fruition.

    Ray then moved the following the resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, the Board created the Board-GAC Joint Working Group (JWG) to review the GAC's role within ICANN, consider measures to enhance support of the GAC's work, and to propose better ways for governments to be informed about ICANN and for enhanced opportunities for the GAC to meet with the ICANN Board and community.

    Whereas, the JWG submitted its final report for consideration.

    Whereas, the JWG has now concluded the work called for in the working group’s terms of reference.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.24), the Board receives the final report from the JWG, acknowledges the work of JWG members and thanks them for producing this report.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.25), the Board directs the CEO to post the JWG report for public comment.

    Resolved (2011.06.24.26), the Board hereby dissolves the Board-GAC Joint Working Group.

    Katim Touray seconded the resolution.

    Heather Dryden thanked the Board members that participated in the working group.  Heather noted that there was a lot of work completed, and the group is satisfied with the contents of the report.  Heather noted her hopes that the recommendations will be seriously considered and that the efforts of the Board and the GAC will be supported, and that implementation will follow quickly after public comment closes on the report.

    The Board then took the following action:

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolutions 2011.06.24.24, 2011.06.24.25, and 2011.06.24.26.

    The Chair thanked Heather and Ray, as the co-chairs of the Joint Working Group, for their efforts.

  11. Issues arising from the Singapore Meeting

    The Chair invited comments from the Board on items observed during the meetings in Singapore .

    Thomas Narten acknowledged the community comment that ICANN did not do a good job communicating what it is doing in response to the ATRT recommendations.  There were suggestions made on ways of getting information out, and the Board will be taking up those suggestions and trying to follow up.

    Bertrand de La Chapelle noted that the upcoming meetings may have a slightly different intensity due to the approval of the new gTLD program.  Bertrand commented that suggestions may be helpful on how to make the next ICANN meeting useful in terms of exchanges or best practices.  Bertrand also acknowledged the community comments on the lessons that need to be learned on the balance of different groups within policy development and the development of ICANN activities.

    The Chair commented on the tone of the meeting since the approval of the new gTLD program on Monday, and the enormous relief of the community that a decision was reached and its time to move on.  The Chair noted that he is particularly grateful to the GAC, and the comment in the Communiqué that “The GAC expresses its willingness to continue to work constructively with the whole ICANN community on the new gTLD program.”  The whole community feels that nobody got everything they wanted out of the process, but there is a program that everybody is ready to move forward with in a constructive manner.

  12. Thanks to Rita Rodin-Johnston

    Gonzalo Navarro moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, Rita Rodin-Johnston, was appointed by the GNSO to the ICANN Board in May 2006.

    Whereas Rita was also appointed by the GNSO in April 2008 to serve an additional three-year term.

    Whereas, Rita concludes her term as a member of the Board of Directors on 24 June 2011.

    Whereas, Rita has served as:

    • Chair and Member of the Board Audit Committee
    • Member of the Board Review Working Group
    • Member of the Board Governance, Compensation, Reconsideration and Structural Improvement Committees
    • Member of the GNSO Improvements Working Group
    • Member of the ICANN Board and ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee Working Group
    • Member of the ICANN Board Equivalent Strings Working Group and ATRT Review Teams

    Resolved (2011.06.24.27), Rita has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for her term of service as a Director, and the Board wishes Rita well in all future endeavours.  Woohoo!

    After presentation of the resolution, many Board members and liaisons provided individual thanks to Rita for her contributions to them and to ICANN.  The Board member statements are available in full in the transcript of the meeting and are incorporated into the minutes by reference.

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolution 2011.06.24.27, by acclamation.

  13. Thanks to Peter Dengate-Thrush

    Steve Crocker moved the following resolution and read it into the record:

    Whereas, Peter Dengate-Thrush was appointed by the ccNSO to serve on the ICANN Board in January 2005.

    Whereas, Peter was also appointed by the ccNSO in April 2008 to serve an additional three-year term.

    Whereas, Peter concludes his term as a member of the Board of Directors on 24 June 2011.

    Whereas, Peter has served as:

    • Chairman of the ICANN Board
    • Member of the ATRT
    • Co-chair of the President’s Strategy Committee
    • Chair of the Executive Committee
    • Chair of the Compensation Committee
    • Chair of the Board Global Relations Committee
    • Member of the following Board Committees: Finance, Board Governance and Audit

    Resolved (2011.06.24.28), Peter has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his term of service as a Director, and the Board wishes Peter well in all future endeavours.

    After presentation of the resolution, many Board members and liaisons provided individual thanks to Peter for his contributions to them and to ICANN.  The Board member statements are available in full in the transcript of the meeting and are incorporated into the minutes by reference.

    All Board members present unanimously approved of Resolution 2011.06.24.28, by acclamation.

    The Chair provided some closing remarks:

    I had a chance to say thank you all for the opportunities of having this wonderful opportunity on Monday night, and I won't repeat any of that.  But it is my last chance to say just a couple things.

    I would like, first of all, to take the opportunity that's been made available to me to post some final thoughts on the Web site which I can compose at slightly more leisure than is available through the course of an ordinary meeting.

    I would just like to comment on the fact that it has been in the last few years an incredibly busy policy period.  And again just listing some of them:  XXX, the GNSO restructuring, redoing the board committees, the new gTLDs, ending the Joint Project Agreement.  We've introduced simultaneous interpretation.  We've built up a fellowship program.  We have seen the first strategic plan developed and then worked through that.  We've launched sTLDs.  Dot travel and DotAsia are now parts of the landscape.  We had the work on the President's Strategy Committee, building institutional confidence.  It has been the most extraordinary period, with IDNs and IDN ccTLDs and DNSSEC.  The list of things we have actually done in the last few years is just extraordinary.

    Let me just be absolutely clear, I'm not the originator of any of that.  None of it was my idea.  But I've been able to help, I think, work on those processes, of course, supported by a cast of thousands, particularly in more than the last couple of years, of course, by a new CEO.  Rod has been fantastic at managing and organizing the delivery of these enormous challenges.

    Hugely satisfying, of course, to bring them all home.

    I think of all of them, the most important historically we will look back and see was the Affirmation of Commitments.  I know we're all excited about the gTLD policy, and that's clearly going to make a change to the look of the Internet.  But in the long-term strategic history of ICANN, I think the changing of the relationship with the United States Government and the shift to accountability to the world in becoming transparent and accountable at that level is in the end going to be the biggest thing that will have happened in this time.

    So as I say, I didn't originate any of that.  But I have been able to work on it but, of course, supported by absolutely incredible staff.  At the risk of offending those -- because we don't have the time -- I just want to focus on perhaps some of the longer serving and begin with Diane. 

    Absolutely extraordinary effort.  Of course, Diane remembers when I was regarded as a rebel at ICANN and, in fact, was mischaracterized as an opponent of ICANN for quite a long time.  I think no one was more surprised than Diane when I became the Chairman of the Board, not something remotely possible when I was a member of the Boston Working Group challenging things in 1998.  Thank you, Diane, for putting up with me and supporting me so thoroughly.

    Tribute also to further incredible staff John Jeffrey and the team, Dan and Amy and Samantha.  Dan particularly.  People have talked about the late-night sessions.  Once I'd finished and gone down to have that social chat in the bar with Bertrand and the others, Dan and the others would be there typing up the resolutions, getting all the material ready.  They worked extra hours, and so that's been extraordinary. 

    Of course, Kurt and all of the gTLD team and, of course, many others which we count.  Very impressive to see the building of the very strong international quality management team of Jamie, Elise, Barbara and David and others all coming -- all beginning to work together powerfully, creating a tremendous amount of synergy amongst themselves and with the Board and the community.

    Of course, I have to say thanks to the people who helped me get to this position, in particular, and work with me in the other capacities and that's Vint Cerf, obviously who I took over from.  He was a great help.  And also Paul Twomey with whom I worked closely for a number of years.

    Things we could have done better.  I think we need to keep a close eye on the structure of ICANN.  It should always be an elegant tension as the members of the community contest with each other for resources, contest with each other for policy positions. 

    We've got a most unusual model with the provider-supplier-customer all in the same room making the policy, overseen, of course, in a particular special role by governments and then underpinned by the support of the At-Large Community of users.  So there needs to be constant tension to make sure that balance on different issues is maintained.

    And perhaps the best example of that recently is the debate around the RAA, making sure we are using the right mechanisms to make the appropriate policy changes.

    I think things we need to keep an eye on in the future, we need to take a role in the inevitable market, whether we like it or not, in the IPv4 address space.  And we need to pay attention to strengthening and getting on to some kind of long-term IANA relationship.  We need to work on exactly what "consensus" means for all of us and what serving the "public interest" means. 

    Let me just give my view about that discussion that was yesterday about defining the "public interest."  I think we should resist that with all our might and main.  Whoever defines the "public interest" will have won the big chunk of the argument and will have excluded the others because there is no such thing as "the public interest."

    There are many public interests, and they are always competing.  Our job is to get it right.  The obvious example are the proponents of free speech and the trademark interests.  Trademark has a monopoly on speech.  Both perfectly valid interests and keeping them and getting the balance right is the job.  There is no such thing as "the public interest."  The search has to be for identifying the elements and establishing the balance.

    I want to also pay tribute to the past and present Boards for support.  It's been an incredible honor to be elected four times as your leader.  As some of you have hinted today in what should have been flowing tributes, I'm not actually perfect.  I know that's a surprise to some.  But I appreciate the way all of you have gone along with my defects, especially my technical grip on things and how that's been tolerated. 

    And I particularly want to acknowledge and thank the backup from Steve, from Thomas, from Suzanne and Ram and Harald before them, wonderful support from my favorite techies.  It is unbelievably comfortable to have what are, in fact, world class -- the leading experts in the world supporting the policy-making process.  So thank you for that.

    Lots of other thank yous I can't go through the entire 21.  But, again, perhaps picking among a galaxy of stars, Thomas, we have been here about the same length of time.  I thank you for your patience and the way you have become the conscience of the Board in many ways. 

    Rita, obviously we've mentioned the strength, the articulate presentation of clear principles.  Ramaraj, sitting silently, watching and then a razor sharp observation backed by truly superb memory, very helpful for keeping us on track. Bruce, an unbelievable resource for ICANN in all roles, having already served many years as GNSO chair to come on the Board and then continue to strive the extraordinary steady pace, the knowledge and the increasing wisdom.  I’m very grateful for your friendship and counsel and support.

    So let me thank everybody as a group.  It has been an incredibly good team, good friendship. 

    And perhaps I’ll close by thanking and welcoming the new directors, thank you for standing.  Thank you for the service that you are about to give, particularly, of course, my old friend Chris Disspain, who takes my seat on behalf of the ccNSOs, having already proved excellent leadership among the ccTLD community and I’m very confident will bring that to the Board so that a quota of blue-eyed, silver- haired antipodean lawyers is maintained.  Congratulations to your elections.

    The Chair declared the meeting closed.

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."