Minutes | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
A Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held in Amsterdam on 15 May 2016 at 14:45 local time.
Steve Crocker, Chair, promptly called the meeting to order.
In addition to the Chair, the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Akram Atallah (President and CEO), Cherine Chalaby (Vice Chair), Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Asha Hemrajani, Rafael Lito Ibarra, Markus Kummer, Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, Lousewies van der Laan, and Kuo-Wei Wu.
The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Ram Mohan (SSAC Liaison), Jonne Soininen (IETF Liaison), and Suzanne Woolf (RSSAC Liaison).
The following Board Liaisons sent their apologies: Thomas Schneider (GAC Liaison).
Observing: Becky Burr and Göran Marby.
Secretary: John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary).
The following ICANN Executives and Staff participated in all or part of the meeting: Susanna Bennett (Chief Operating Officer); Michelle Bright (Board Operations Content Manager); Duncan Burns (Vice President, Global Communications); Xavier Calvez (Chief Financial Officer); David Conrad (Chief Technology Officer); Sally Costerton (Senior Advisor to the President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement); Allen Grogan (Chief Contract Compliance Officer); Tarek Kamel (Sr. Advisor to the President – Gov. Engagement); Melissa King (VP, Board Operations); Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Board Operations Content Manager); Chris Mondini (Vice President, Stakeholder Engagement NA & GBE); David Olive (Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters – Istanbul); Wendy Profit (Board Operations Specialist); Ashwin Rangan (Chief Innovation And Information Officer); Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel); and Theresa Swinehart (Sr. Advisor to the President on Strategy).
These are the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board, which took place on 15 May 2016.
- Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
- Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment
- GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016)
- Conduct at ICANN Meetings
- Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG)
- Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services
- Report re: .HOTEL
- SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval
- October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting
- USG IANA Stewardship Transition – Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding
- Executive Session – CONFIDENTIAL
The Chair introduced the items on the consent agenda and called for a vote. The Board then took the following action by acclamation:
Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are approved:
Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
Resolved (2016.05.15.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 3, 9 and 10 March 2016 Meetings of the ICANN Board.
Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Appointment
Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) reviews its membership and makes adjustments from time-to-time.
Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on behalf of the SSAC, requested that the Board should appoint John R. Levine to the SSAC for a three-year term beginning immediately upon approval by the Board and ending on 31 December 2019.
Resolved (2016.05.15.02), the Board appoints John R. Levine to the SSAC for a three-year term beginning immediately and ending on 31 December 2019.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.02
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 naming and address allocation systems.
The SSAC's continued operation as a competent body is dependent on the accrual of talented subject matter experts who have consented to volunteer their time and energies to the execution of the SSAC mission. John R. Levine brings a breadth of technical expertise and a well-deserved reputation for excellent technical debate. The SSAC believes he would be a significant contributing member of the SSAC, and the Board accepts the SSAC recommendation to appoint John R. Levine to the SSAC.
GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments (2016)
Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board."
Whereas, the Board has established a Process For Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters (the "Process").
Whereas, the GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), ICANN staff, and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) have completed all steps identified in the Process.
Whereas, the amendments appear to address a number of matters the Board directed to the RySG's attention in previous Board Resolution Number 2015.10.22.14.
Resolved (2016.05.15.03), the ICANN Board approves the RySG Charter Amendments as documented in the briefing materials submitted to the Board. The RySG and ICANN staff are directed to publish the amended Charter on the appropriate RySG web pages. The Board directs the RySG to review the amendments within one year to determine if they are having the intended impacts. ICANN staff is further directed to share this resolution with the leadership of the RySG.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.03
Why is the Board addressing this issue now?
ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section 5.3) state, "Each Stakeholder Group shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." The Board has interpreted this language to require that the ICANN Board formally approve any amendments to the governing documents of Stakeholder Groups (SG) and/or Constituencies in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).
In September 2013, the Board established a Process For Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters ("Process") to provide a streamlined methodology for compliance with the Bylaws requirement.
Earlier this year, the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) of the GNSO approved amendments to its governing documents and availed itself of the Process.
What are the proposals being considered?
The Stakeholder Group has amended its existing Charter document to adjust to an evolving composition of membership and to enable it to more effectively undertake its policy development responsibilities. Among a number of amendments, the most substantial charter changes are in the following areas:
- Creation of a new class of "Association" members;
- Changes to the weighted voting categories and measures of the group; and
- Adjustments to the community fee structure to accommodate the addition of association members.
What stakeholders or others were consulted?
In addition to extensive community deliberations within the RySG, the proposed amendments were subjected to a 43-day Public Comment period (22 February – 4 April 2016). When the period was completed, staff produced a Summary Report for community and Board review on 15 April 2016.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed a redline formatted document of the proposed charter amendments and a copy of the Staff Summary Report summarizing community comments.
What factors did the Board find to be significant?
The GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group, ICANN staff, and the Organizational Effectiveness Committee completed all steps identified in the Process. The publication of the amendments for community review and comment resulted in support for the changes.
Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?
The Stakeholder Group has amended its existing Charter document to adjust to an evolving composition of membership and to enable it to more effectively undertake its policy development responsibilities.
Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public?
The amendments include adjustments to the RySG fee structure which could impact individual community members.
Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
There is no anticipated impact from this decision on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this decision.
Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?
The proposed amendments were subjected to a 43-day Public Comment period (22 February – 4 April 2016).
Conduct at ICANN Meetings
Whereas, during and after ICANN55, the issue of certain community-member conduct toward one another has been raised in various sessions and lists.
Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has reviewed proposed revisions to the language of the Expected Standards of Behavior that align with generally accepted broad standards for areas of protection, and recommended that the Board authorize the revised version be posted for public comment.
Whereas, the BGC also has recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to retain an expert, as appropriate, with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings.
Resolved (2016.05.15.04), the Board hereby authorizes the posting for public comment of the proposed revised Expected Standards of Behavior.
Resolved (2016.05.15.05), the Board hereby directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to retain an expert, as appropriate, with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings, which could include items such as complaints handling and resolution and enforcement processes.
Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.04 – 2016.05.15.05
During and after ICANN55, the issue of certain community-member conduct toward one another has been raised in various sessions and lists, and the Board agreed to address this matter. In response, the Board has confirmed and reiterated that ICANN's Board and staff take the issue of harassment or other improper conduct at its meetings very seriously. ICANN and members of the community share the goal of ensuring that ICANN community members are able to participate and contribute within an environment that does not tolerate discrimination and that remains free from harassment.
As an organization, ICANN has robust internal policies regarding the issue, including mandatory training for staff and Board members. While ICANN community members are not bound to the same policies and rules as the ICANN Board and staff, ICANN does expect community members to adhere to certain Expected Standards of Behavior ("Standards"). The current language of these Standards does not specifically address harassment, but does provide a set of high-level guidelines for interacting with one another. As the Board previously committed, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) was tasked with considering possible enhancements to the language of these Standards. Accordingly, revisions to the Standards have been proposed that are based on generally accepted broad standards for protection, and the BGC has reviewed these and recommended that the Board authorize the posting for public comment of the proposed revised Standards.
In parallel, staff has initiated discussions with community leaders, and the Board and staff have received input from various aspects of the community, about the process for developing a Community anti-harassment policy. It appears from the input received to date that Community members (at least those that have publicly commented) would like to ask ICANN to work with experts, as needed and appropriate, to help develop a proposed Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings, which would in turn be presented to the community for further discussion and input. Further, various Community leaders and members, either as part of group calls on the topic or individually, provided a number of specific examples that can inform the drafting of a proposed policy/procedure. These include:
- The Ada Initiative (https://adainitiative.org/continue-our-work/ada-initiative-event-anti-harassment-policy/);
- The IETF (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html);
- The Internet Governance Forum (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf/igf-code-of-conduct);
- The NTEN (Nonprofit Technology Network (http://www.nten.org/ntc/about-the-ntc/code-of-conduct/);
- RIPE (https://ripe72.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/);
- The United Nations and its specialized agencies' anti-harassment staff policies (some of these are collected at http://www.ficsa.org/component/sobipro/?task=download.file&fid=37.1329&sid=1266&Itemid=0 [DOC, 36 KB])
In addition, the GNSO Chair and Vice Chairs sent a letter on behalf of the GNSO Council and suggested a number of considerations to be taken into account in developing an anti-harassment policy and procedure for the Community. A copy of the letter can be viewed at http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-atallah-25apr16-en.pdf [PDF, 299 KB].
The BGC therefore also has recommended that the Board direct the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to retain an expert, as appropriate, with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public Meetings, which could include items such as complaints handling and resolution and enforcement processes. The Board agrees with this approach.
There will be a minor fiscal impact on ICANN, which is not anticipated to exceed already budgeted amounts, and it will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.
This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG)
Whereas, the Internet governance landscape continues to evolve, and ICANN's role within the Internet governance ecosystem will also continue to evolve and will benefit from an enhanced dialogue between the Board and management working on Internet governance issues.
Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has recommended that the Board form a Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) to provide consultation and advice on ICANN's efforts related to involvement in Internet governance work, as appropriate within ICANN's mission and in service of ICANN's strategic plan, which includes providing consultation with ICANN staff on collaboration and engagement in Internet governance activities.
Whereas, the BGC has recommended that the Board appoint the following Board members to the BWG-IG: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Markus Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan.
Resolved (2016.05.15.06), the Board hereby approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the BGC with the following membership: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Ron da Silva, Chris Disspain, Markus Kummer (Chair), Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies van der Laan.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolutions 2016.05.15.01, 2016.05.15.02, 2016.05.15.03, 2016.05.15.04 - 2016.05.15.05, and 2016.05.15.06. The Resolutions carried.
Consideration of GNSO Policy Recommendations concerning the Accreditation of Privacy and Proxy Services
Bruce Tonkin introduced the agenda item and provided the Board with a summary of the consensus policy recommendations adopted by the GNSO regarding accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers. As part of his report, Bruce noted that the GAC issued advice to the Board in its Marrakech Communiqué (March 2016) that the GAC needed more time to consider the potential public policy concerns related to the GNSO's policy recommendations.
The Board considered its next steps on the GNSO policy recommendations in light of the advice from the GAC. Chris Disspain commented that the policy development process allows for the GAC to participate, and additionally the GAC may issue advice on public policy concerns. Chris suggested that the GAC should have a dialogue with the GNSO on this matter at the ICANN meeting in Helsinki, and if the GAC issues any advice after the dialogue, the Board could take it up at that time. Bruce noted that there may be time on the schedule at the Helsinki meeting for the parties to have a dialogue.
Bruce Tonkin moved, and Chris Disspain seconded the resolution. The Board took the following action:
Whereas, on 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter for a Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process that had been requested by the ICANN Board concerning the accreditation by ICANN of privacy and proxy domain name registration service providers, as further described at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 463 KB].
Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report being delivered to the GNSO Council on 8 December 2015.
Whereas, the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG) reached Full Consensus on all its final recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf [PDF, 1.24 MB]).
Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the final recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG, and adopted the recommendations on 21 January 2016 by a unanimous vote (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201601).
Whereas, the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required voting threshold (i.e. supermajority) to impose new obligations on ICANN contracted parties.
Whereas, in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment period was opened on the approved recommendations to provide the community with a reasonable opportunity to comment on their adoption prior to action by the ICANN Board, and the comments received have been summarized and reported (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ppsai-recommendations-31mar16-en.pdf [PDF, 299 KB]).
Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws provide that the Board is to request the GAC's opinion regarding "any policies that are being considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges" and "take duly into account any advice timely presented" as a result.
Whereas, the Board notified the GAC of the publication of the GNSO's final recommendations for public comment on 19 February 2016 (see https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Crocker-to-Thomas-Schneider-GNSO-PDP.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1456046942000&api=v2 [PDF, 819 KB]).
Whereas, in its Marrakech Communiqué issued on 9 March 2016 the GAC advised the ICANN Board that it needed more time to consider potential public policy concerns relating to the adoption of the final PDP recommendations, and identifying that the June 2016 ICANN56 meeting would be an appropriate opportunity to further consider these items (see https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GAC%20Morocco%2055%20Communique%20FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1458046221000&api=v2 [PDF, 567 KB]).
Resolved (2016.05.15.07), the Board thanks the GNSO for completing the Board-requested Policy Development Process (PDP) and acknowledges receipt of the PDP Final Report and the GNSO Council's Recommendations Report concerning the final PDP recommendations.
Resolved (2016.05.15.08), the Board identifies that more time is required to consider the final PDP recommendations, including time for the provision and consideration of GAC advice, if any will be provided. The Board anticipates taking further action on the recommendations at the first Board meeting following the ICANN56 Public Meeting in Helsinki, Finland.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolutions 2016.05.15.07 – 2016.05.15.08. The Resolutions carried.
Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.07 – 2016.05.15.08
Why is the Board addressing the issue now?
In its October 2011 initiation of negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group for a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), the ICANN Board also requested an Issue Report from the GNSO to start a GNSO PDP addressing remaining issues not dealt with in the RAA. In June 2013, the ICANN Board approved a new 2013 RAA, and the topic of accrediting privacy and proxy services was identified as the sole issue to be resolved through a GNSO PDP. This topic had also been noted by the Whois Review Team in its Final Report, published in May 2012, in which the Review Team had highlighted the current lack of clear and consistent rules regarding these services, resulting in unpredictable outcomes for stakeholders. The Review Team thought that appropriate oversight over such services would address stakeholder needs and concerns, and recommended that ICANN consider an accreditation system. Until the development of an accreditation program, only certain aspects of such services are covered by an interim specification to the 2013 RAA, which is due to expire on 1 January 2017 or the implementation by ICANN of an accreditation program, whichever first occurs.
The GNSO Council approved all the final recommendations from the PDP Working Group's Final Report dated 8 December 2015 at its meeting on 21 January 2016, and a Recommendations Report from the Council to the Board on the topic in February 2016. In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment period was opened to facilitate public input on the adoption of the recommendations. The public comment period closed on 16 March 2016. As outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws, the PDP recommendations are now being forwarded to the Board for its review and action.
What is the proposal being considered?
The GNSO's policy recommendations include minimum mandatory requirements for the operation of privacy and proxy services; the maintenance of designated contact points for abuse reporting and the publication of a list of accredited providers; requirements related to the handling of requests for disclosure and/or publication of a customer's contact details by certain third party requesters; conditions regarding the disclosure and publication of such details as well as the refusal to disclose or publish; and principles governing the de-accreditation of service providers. The full list and scope of the final recommendations can be found in Annex A of the GNSO Council's Recommendations Report to the Board (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-ppsai-recommendations-09feb16-en.pdf [PDF, 491 KB]).
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
As required by the GNSO's PDP Manual, the Working Group reached out to all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for input during the early phase of the PDP. The Working Group also held open community sessions at all the ICANN Public Meetings that occurred during the lifetime of this PDP. It also sought input on potential implementation issues from ICANN's Registrar Services and Compliance teams. Public comment periods were opened for the Preliminary Issue Report that preceded the PDP, the Working Group's Initial Report, and the GNSO Council's adoption of the Working Group's Final Report. The final recommendations as detailed in the Final Report were completed based on the Working Group's review and analysis of all the public comments and input received in response to its Initial Report.
What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
A significant number of public comments were received by the Working Group concerning the possibility that a distinction might be made between domain name registrants with domains serving non-commercial purposes and registrants who conduct online financial transactions. This had been an open question in the Working Group's Initial Report, as at the time a number of Working Group members had supported that distinction. As a result of further Working Group deliberations following review of the public comments received, the Working Group reached consensus on a recommendation that no such distinction be made for purposes of accrediting services.
Concerns had also been expressed over the need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place for maintaining the privacy of customer data, and that a reasonable balance is struck as between a legitimate need for access to information (e.g. by law enforcement and intellectual property rights-holders) and that of protecting privacy. Many public comments received in response to the Working Group's Initial Report also highlighted the potential dangers of disclosing private information without cause, including the threat to the physical safety of certain groups of domain name registrants and privacy/proxy customers. The Working Group's final recommendations include a number of suggested principles and policies that aim to provide more concrete guidance than exists at present for privacy and proxy services, third party requesters of customer information, and domain name registrants in relation to topics such as the handling of customer notifications, information requests and domain name transfers.
The Working Group also received several comments concerning the lack of a detailed framework for the submission and confidential handling of disclosure requests from law enforcement authorities, including from the GAC's Public Safety Working Group. In its Initial Report, the Working Group sought community input on the question as to whether and how such a framework might be developed as well as on more specific questions such as whether it should be mandatory for accredited providers to comply with express requests from law enforcement authorities in the provider's jurisdiction not to notify a customer. Based on input received, the Working Group agreed that accredited privacy and proxy service providers should comply with express law enforcement requests not to notify a customer where this is required by applicable law. Providers would be free to voluntarily adopt more stringent standards or otherwise cooperate with law enforcement authorities. As the Working Group did not receive concrete proposals on how a specific framework applicable to law enforcement requests could be developed, its Final Report contains a suggestion for certain minimum requirements that could be included if such a framework is developed in the future.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the PDP Working Group's Final Report, the GNSO Council's Recommendations Report on the topic to the Board, the summary of public comments received in response to the public comment period that was opened following the GNSO Council's adoption of the recommendations contained in the Final Report, and GAC advice received on the topic.
What factors did the Board find to be significant?
The recommendations were developed following the GNSO Policy Development Process as set out in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and have received the unanimous support of the GNSO Council. As outlined in the ICANN Bylaws, the Council's supermajority support obligates the Board to adopt the recommendations unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds, the Board determines that the recommended policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
The Bylaws also allow for input from the GAC in relation to public policy concerns that might be raised if a proposed policy is adopted by the Board. The GAC has noted that public policy concerns might be raised in the adoption of these policy recommendations, and as such the Board is obliged to take into account any advice that the GAC may provide in a timely manner on the topic. Therefore, it is prudent for the Board to allow time for the GAC to provide that advice as indicated in its March 2016 Communiqué.
Are there positive or negative community impacts?
Developing a full accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers will require significant resources and take a substantial period of time. Deferring adoption of the PDP recommendations will also mean that the need to extend the interim specification in the 2013 RAA beyond its current expiration date will become more urgent.
At present, there is no accreditation scheme in place for privacy and proxy services and no agreed community-developed set of best practices for the provision of such services. This PDP represents an attempt to develop a sound basis for the development and implementation of a proxy/privacy accreditation framework by ICANN. This is part of ICANN's ongoing efforts to improve the Whois system, including implementing recommendations made previously by the Whois Review Team. Implementing many of the GNSO recommendations would create a more uniform set of standards for many aspects of privacy and proxy services, including more consistent procedures for the handling, processing and determination of third party requests by accredited providers, into which reasonable safeguards to protect consumer privacy can be incorporated.
Nevertheless, as highlighted above, the implementation of all the recommendations from the PDP will be time- and resource-intensive due to the scale of the project and the fact that this will be the first time ICANN has implemented such a program for this industry sector. While the RAA may serve as a useful reference point for this program, the Working Group's Final Report acknowledged that this may not be the most appropriate model for a number of reasons.
The Working Group's Final Report also notes a few areas where additional work may be required, which could increase the community's workload in the near term. For example, the issue of privacy and proxy services in the context of domain name transfers will need to be addressed in the next review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. To the extent that the GAC provides the Board with timely advice of relevant public policy concerns and the Board accepts such advice, the development of a disclosure framework for law enforcement authorities and other third parties may also need to be considered, possibly in parallel with implementation of the overall accreditation program.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
There may be fiscal impacts on ICANN associated with the creation of a new accreditation program specifically covering providers of privacy and proxy services if the PDP recommendations are adopted, regardless of whether this occurs immediately or in the future. However, as the current interim specification in the RAA applicable to such services is due to expire on 1 January 2017, consideration will need to be given to either extending its duration (e.g. to allow for implementation should the PDP recommendations be adopted) or amending and updating it in the event that the PDP recommendations are not adopted.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
There are no security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS that can be directly attributable to the implementation of the PDP recommendations. While the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers is part of the overall effort at ICANN to improve the Whois system, it does not affect or change either the Whois protocol (including the rollout of the new RDAP, or Registration Data Access Protocol) or the current features of the Whois system. The Working Group made its final recommendations with the understanding that implementation of its recommendations would be done in the context of any other policy or technical changes to the Whois system, which are outside the scope of this PDP.
Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?
The recommendations at issue are a result of the defined GNSO Policy Development Process. No public comment is required for this deferral action.
Report re: .HOTEL
Ram Mohan abstained, noting potential conflicts. Amy Stathos made a report to the Board to follow-up on the action it took on 10 March 2016 concerning the .HOTEL and .ECO IRP Declaration. In its 10 March 2016 action, the Board directed the President and CEO to complete the investigation of the issues alleged by Despegar Online SRL, Donuts Inc., Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry LLC, and Radix FZC (collectively, ".HOTEL Claimants") regarding the portal configuration as soon as feasible and to provide a report to the Board for consideration following the completion of that investigation. Amy reminded the Board that the portal issue raised in the IRP related to the misconfiguration issue affecting the New gTLD Applicant and GDD portals that allowed portal users to view confidential information belonging to other applicants if they conducted a particular type of advanced search.
Amy reported that ICANN's investigation uncovered information suggesting that that a limited number of users in particular accessed and downloaded materials pertaining to a large number of other users as a result of the misconfiguration issue. Amy informed the Board that as part of the investigation, staff recently sent a series of correspondence to relevant parties, which is available on the ICANN website, in order to gather additional facts to help complete the investigation.
Erika Mann inquired about whether the investigation shows what data was accessed and whether staff received responses to its correspondence. Amy stated that staff received some responses, and such information would be presented in the final report of the investigation. The Board decided to discuss the matter further upon the conclusion of the investigation.
SO/AC FY17 Additional Budget Requests Approval
Asha Hemrajani presented the agenda item to the Board. She explained that various Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC) submitted additional budget requests for FY17. Cherine Chalaby and Asha informed the Board about the process for considering the additional budget requests, and explained how staff from various departments evaluate the requests and make recommendations to the Finance Committee.
Lito Ibarra, George Sadowsky and Chris Disspain asked questions regarding the process for considering and approving additional budget requests. Xavier Calvez provided some examples of the types of items usually requested through the additional budget requests process, such as exceptional programs or pilot programs for SOs/ACs. Xavier noted that sometimes these items end up in ICANN's core budget at a later date.
Akram Atallah provided background information on how the additional budget requests process come to fruition, and highlighted that the process provides another way for ICANN to be more fiscally responsible.
Lousewies van der Laan inquired about the process staff undergoes before accepting or rejecting a request. Xavier noted that the process takes a significant amount of time, and David Olive further explained that the process includes guidelines so that the community understands that the funding decisions are not arbitrarily made.
After discussion, the Board took the following action by acclamation:
Whereas, prior discussions between community members and ICANN staff members identified the need for an earlier decision on the funding of additional budget requests from ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC).
Whereas, the staff created an SO/AC additional budget requests process, to collect, review and submit for Board approval funding requests from the SOs and ACs.
Whereas, requests were submitted by the ICANN community by the set deadline, and were reviewed by a panel of staff members representing the Policy, Stakeholder Engagement and Finance departments.
Whereas, the review panel recommended the approval of requests representing $643,700 for approval.
Whereas the Board Finance Committee, reviewed the process followed and the staff proposal, and has recommended that the Board approve the staff recommendation.
Resolved (2016.05.15.09), the Board approves committing $643,700 during Fiscal Year 2017 to cover the costs associated with the adopted SO/AC additional budget requests.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2016.05.15.09. The Resolutions carried.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.09
The budget approval earlier in the year is a reasonable accommodation of the established budget approval process and timeline, that facilitate the work of the ICANN community and of the ICANN staff, and does not create additional expenses. The amount of the committed expenses resulting from this resolution is considered sufficiently small to not require that funding resources are specifically identified for each request.
There is no anticipated impact from this decision on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this decision.
The approval process is an Organizational Administrative process that has already been subject to significant input from the community.
October 2016 ICANN Meeting Venue Contracting
Nick Tomasso engaged the Board in a discussion regarding the ICANN Meeting scheduled to be held in October 2016 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Nick reminded the Board that earlier in the year, ICANN decided to relocate ICANN 56 from Panama City, Panama to Helsinki, Finland due to concerns related to the Zika virus. He noted that the ICANN Meetings team continued to monitor the spread of the Zika virus in connection with upcoming ICANN meetings, and after many difficult discussions and consultation with SO/AC leadership, explored alternative meeting locations for the October 2016 meeting.
Sally Costerton informed the Board that the executive management team had difficult discussions to arrive at the recommendation to postpone going to Puerto Rico, and took seriously the feedback received from SO/AC leaders and others in the community. Lito Ibarra noted that many in the Latin American and Caribbean communities expressed disappointment about the possibility of ICANN moving the Annual General Meeting from Puerto Rico.
The Board engaged in a discussion regarding the possibility of relocating ICANN 57. Mike Silber asked staff to explain the basis for its recommendation, and the Board discussion focused on the health risks associated with the Zika virus, and the community and fiscal impacts if the meeting remained in Puerto Rico or were to be relocated to an alternative location. Nick reported on possible alternative venues and dates, and informed the Board that finding an alternative venue on the originally scheduled dates was challenging because October and early November are the busiest times of the year for conferences around the world, and the ICANN meeting require a facility with a large amount of meeting space over a prolonged period of time.
The Board's discussion also focused on the appropriate role of the Board in the decision-making process of selecting meeting locations, and Lousewies van der Laan inquired about the process for the Board taking up this matter. It was noted that staff's role is to select the meeting venues and locations, while the Board's role is part of the procurement process for considering whether or not to approve expenditures exceeding $500,000. Chris Disspain and Cherine Chalaby noted that the Board Finance Committee reviewed the proposed additional expenditure of funds pursuant to the procurement process. The Board reviewed the financial impacts of moving the meeting to an alternate location, and members analyzed the expenses associated with the alternatives.
Board members expressed a variety of views on whether or not the meeting should be relocated, and if so, the suitability of alternative dates and venues. Board members also requested that staff develop a more defined process for selecting alternative venues if a meeting needs to be relocated, including criteria addressing how to maintain the regional rotation schedule for meetings and the factors to be considered when and if a meeting is to be relocated.
Ram Mohan moved and Markus Kummer seconded the resolution. The Board took the following action:
Whereas, ICANN intended to hold its third Public Meeting of 2016 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in the North America region.
Whereas, the Zika Virus outbreak in Puerto Rico has caused the need for a relocation of the Public Meeting.
Whereas, ICANN must identify an alternative venue.
Resolved (2016.05.15.10), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to engage in and facilitate all necessary contracting and disbursements for ICANN 57 in an amount [REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES].
Resolved (2016.05.15.11), specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential for negotiation purposes pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws until the President and CEO determines that the confidential information may be released.
Thirteen members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2016.05.15.10 – 2016.05.15.11. Bruno Lanvin and Lousewies van der Laan abstained. The Resolutions carried. Subsequent to the meeting, Rinalia Abdul Rahim indicated to the Secretary that she had wished to abstain from the vote on Resolutions 2016.05.15.10 – 2016.05.15.11, citing discomfort with supporting the resolutions without further information being provided on the venue selection process, and certainty over which venue would be selected.
Rationale for Resolutions 2016.05.15.10 – 2016.05.15.11
As part of ICANN's Public Meeting schedule, presently three times a year, ICANN hosts a meeting in a different geographic region (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws). ICANN 57, originally scheduled for 29 October - 4 November 2016, was to occur in the North America geographic region. San Juan, Puerto Rico was originally selected. Since the Zika Virus outbreak made it unsuitable for an ICANN Meeting in 2016, staff is tasked with performing a search for suitable, alternative venues for ICANN 57 in all geographic regions of the world, even if the originally scheduled dates must change.
As per the process, the staff will perform a thorough analysis of the meeting facilities to ensure they have met the Meeting Selection Criteria (see http://meetings.icann.org/location-selection-criteria) to ensure that the identified alternative location for ICANN 57 is appropriate.
There will be a financial impact on ICANN in hosting the meeting and providing travel support as necessary, as well as on the community in incurring costs to travel to the meeting. But such impact would be faced regardless of the location and venue of the meeting. This action will have no impact on the security or the stability of the DNS.
This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.
USG IANA Stewardship Transition – Additional FY16 Expenses and Funding
Cherine Chalaby introduced the agenda item. He presented the Board with the Board Finance Committee's recommendation for the approval of $5.4 million to cover the costs of the IANA stewardship transition between the period 1 April 2016 – 30 June 2016. Cherine provided background information on the expenditures from the transition, noting that the Board previously approved the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget, which included expenditures for the transition. He also reported that the recommended expenditure was developed by the Project Cost Support Team, which analyzed the costs of the transition since its inception to arrive at an estimate for the amount of funds needed through the end of the fiscal year.
Cherine Chalaby moved and Erika Mann seconded the resolution. The Board took the following action:
Whereas, the Board has approved expense budget envelopes to support the IANA Stewardship Transition Project ("Project") during FY15 and FY16, and all approved budget envelopes will have been used after the ICANN Meeting 55 in Marrakech.
Whereas, a Project Cost Support Team was implemented to produce Project expense estimates for the remainder of FY16 and for FY17 for the Project.
Whereas, Project Cost Support Team produced expense estimates for the Project expenses of up to approximately US$5.4 million to be incurred through the remainder of FY16.
Whereas, the Board Finance Committee met on 3 March 2016 and has approved to recommend to the Board to approve an additional Project expense budget envelope of up US$5.4 million to cover Project expenses through the remainder of FY16.
Resolved (2016.05.15.12), the Board approves a budget envelope of up to US$5.4 million to cover the costs of the Project to be incurred through the remainder of FY16 to be funded through a fund release from the Reserve Fund.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2016.05.15.12. The Resolutions carried.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.12
The IANA Stewardship Transition is a major initiative to which the ICANN Community as a whole is dedicating a significant amount of time and resources. ICANN's support for the community's work towards a successful completion of the Project (including both the USG IANA Stewardship transition proposal development and the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability's work), as well as supporting ICANN's implementation planning efforts is critical for ICANN.
Considering its exceptional nature and the significant amount of costs anticipated to be incurred, the funding of this Project could not be provided through the Operating Fund. Accordingly, when the Board approved the FY15 and FY16 Operating Plans and Budgets, it included the anticipated funding of the transition initiative costs through a corresponding withdrawal from the Reserve Fund.
The Board previously approved the FY16 Operating Plan and Budget, which included an estimated budget envelope of US$7 million for the USG IANA Stewardship Transition ("Project") to be funded by the Reserve Fund. As the Project used this entire budget envelope by the end of November 2015, the Board approved additional funding of US$4.5 million on 2 February 2016 to allow the project to be funded through the ICANN Meeting 55 in Marrakech. At ICANN 55 in Marrakech, the Board approved additional funding of US$1.5 million on 2 February 2016 to allow the project to be funded through the period of time until the PCST team had worked on a FY16 forecast.
The Board reiterated on its 25 June 2015 statement that the Board is "committed to supporting the community in obtaining the advice it needs in developing recommendations in support of the transition process, and also notes the importance of making sure that the funds entrusted to ICANN by the community are used in responsible and efficient ways. Assuring the continuation of cost-control measures over the future work of the independent counsel is encouraged." (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-06-25-en#2.c.).
As the community work relative to the accountability track of the Project is expected to continue, further expenses are expected through the remainder of FY16 and during FY17. The implementation planning for other parts of the Project will also continue. Separately, in order to improve visibility on and control of the expenses for this type of project in partnership with the community, a project costs support team is being formed to produce costs estimates for future work.
The Board Finance Committee has determined that an additional budget envelope of approximately US$5.4 million needs to be approved by Board to allow ICANN to incur further Project expenses for the remainder of FY16.
As this initiative's expenses and funding are approved by the Board, the ICANN Board is now being asked to approve a budget envelope of US$5.4 million to be funded through a release from the Reserve Fund as an additional expense budget envelope for the remainder of FY16.
This action will not have a direct impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Enhancing Openness and Transparency – Board Deliberations
The Chair called for any other business, and introduced an agenda item related to the Board taking additional steps to enhance the openness and transparency as it relates to deliberations at Board meetings. The Chair noted that this effort is also likely to support the ICANN community in enhancing ICANN's accountability as it will reduce questions of how and why the Board reaches its decisions.
Board members proposed suggested edits to the proposed resolution and rationale, and then took the following action by acclamation:
Whereas, the Board believes that providing increased access to Board deliberations is important, and that increased openness is an important means of working toward that goal.
Whereas, the ICANN Board discussed at its Amsterdam workshop how to improve its functioning and agreed that enhancing the visibility into the Board deliberations and decision-making processes was an important part of becoming more accountable and more transparent.
Whereas, the Board noted the call from the community for increased openness and transparency.
Whereas, the Board believes that a positive first step towards increased openness is publicly posting transcripts and/or recordings of its deliberative sessions to the extent that such information or dialogue is not subject to confidentiality restrictions or privilege.
Resolved (2016.05.15.13), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Board to develop a proposed plan for the publication of transcripts and/or recordings of Board deliberative sessions, with such plan to include an assessment of possible resources costs and fiscal impact, and draft processes to: (i) ensure the accuracy of the transcript; and (ii) for redaction of portions of the transcript that should be maintained as confidential or privileged.
Resolved (2016.05.15.14), the Board expects to evaluate the plan in Helsinki, and if satisfactory to begin testing of the proposed processes relating to publication of transcripts and/or recordings of the Board's deliberative sessions as soon as practicable after Helsinki.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2016.05.15.13 – 2016.05.15.14. The Resolutions carried.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.05.15.13 – 2016.05.15.14
In support of the continued call for visibility into Board deliberations and processes, the Board has determined to make available transcripts or recordings, where appropriate, of the Board's deliberative sessions. This effort to enhance openness is likely to also support the ICANN community in enhancing ICANN's accountability, as it will reduce questions of how and why the Board reaches its decisions. This decision also directly supports ICANN's previous efforts and the continued goal of operating as openly and transparently in its decision-making. ICANN is also acting consistently with the ICANN's Bylaws, as set out in Article III, section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws, that, "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." (ICANN Bylaws at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en - III.)
There will be issues before the Board for which confidentiality is still required, and that may require redaction of parts or withholding of full transcripts, and it is important that the community and the Board understand how those decisions will be taken. To that end, the Board is directing the development of a plan, which would include proposed processes by which those redaction decisions for confidentiality and privilege are to be made. That plan should be developed as soon as practicable, and should be ready for Board consideration during ICANN56 in Helsinki.
This decision will not have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. Implementation of this decision may involve increased costs, including, risk and fiscal impact for ICANN.
This is an organizational administrative function for which public comment is not required, but such input may be useful at a later point depending upon the plan.
Executive Session – CONFIDENTIAL
The Board held a confidential portion of the session relating to employment matters.
Published on 27 June 2016