Skip to main content
Resources

Minutes | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board

A public Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held telephonically on 10 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC.

Maarten Botterman, Chair, promptly called the meeting to order.

In addition to the Chair, the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Becky Burr, Ron da Silva, Sarah Deutsch, Chris Disspain, Avri Doria, Rafael Lito Ibarra, Danko Jevtović, Göran Marby (President and CEO), Akinori Maemura, Mandla Msimang, Ihab Osman, Nigel Roberts, León Sánchez (Vice Chair), Matthew Shears, and Tripti Sinha.

The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Harald Alvestrand (IETF Liaison), Manal Ismail (GAC Liaison), Merike Käo (SSAC Liaison), and Kaveh Ranjbar (RSSAC Liaison).

Patricio Poblete was in attendance as an invited observer.

Secretary: John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary).

The following ICANN Executives and Staff participated in all or part of the meeting: Michelle Bright (Board Content Coordination Director), Franco Carrasco (Board Operations Specialist), Mandy Carver (Senior Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Engagement), Sally Newell Cohen (SVP, Global Communications), David Conrad (SVP, Chief Technology Officer), Sally Costerton (Sr. Advisor to President & SVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement), Samantha Eisner (Deputy General Counsel), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Aaron Jimenez (Board Operations Specialist), Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Senior Director, Board Operations), Elizabeth Le (Associate General Counsel), David Olive (Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support), Krista Papac (Complaints Officer), Wendy Profit (Board Operations Senior Manager), Ashwin Rangan (SVP, Engineering & Chief Information Officer), Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel), Theresa Swinehart (Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives), and Gina Villavicencio (SVP, Global Human Resources).

  1. Consent Agenda:
    1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Main Agenda:
    1. Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Member Appointments
    2. Root Server Organization (RSO) appointments to the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
    3. Transfer of the .CO (Colombia) top-level domain to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies
    4. Board Governance Committee's Recommendation on the Appointment of the 2021 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect
    5. Acceptance of At-Large2 Review Final Implementation Report
    6. AOB

 

  1. Consent Agenda:

    The Chair introduced the items on the Consent Agenda and called for a vote. The Board took the following action:

    The following items on the Consent Agenda are approved:

    1. Approval of Minutes

      Resolved (2020.09.10.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 18 June 2020 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, the 9 July 2020 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, the 13 August 2020 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, and the 27 August 2020 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board.

    All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2020.09.10.01. The Resolution carried.

  2. Main Agenda:

    1. Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Member Appointments

      Merike Käo introduced the agenda item. Merike noted that the SSAC has completed its process of selecting a Chair and requests that the Board reappoint Rod Rasmussen as SSAC Chair for a three-year term. The SSAC further recommends that the Board reappoint the following SSAC members to three-year terms: Greg Aaron, Benedict Addis, KC Claffy, Lyman Chapin, Geoff Huston, Barry Leiba, Russ Mundy, Rod Rasmussen, Chris Rosenraad, and Mark Seiden. Merike further stated that the SSAC has continued looking for new members, and it has a process in place where interested members would submit eligibility for membership, and a membership then reviews to see whether or not new SSAC candidates would be approved. From this process, Steve Crocker has been accepted by the SSAC Membership Committee, and the SSAC recommends that the Board approve that Dr. Crocker to be an SSAC member.

      Lito Ibarra moved and Sarah Deutsch seconded. The Chair called for a vote and Board took the following action:

      Whereas, Section 12.2(b)(ii) of the Bylaws states that the Board shall appoint the Chair and the members of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

      Whereas, the three-year term for Rod Rasmussen as SSAC Chair ends on 31 December 2020.

      Whereas, the SSAC has completed its process of selecting a Chair and requests that the Board reappoint Rod Rasmussen as SSAC Chair for a three-year term to begin on 01 January 2021.

      Whereas, the Board, in Resolution 2010.08.05.07, approved Bylaws revisions that created three-year terms for SSAC members, required staggering of terms, and obligated the SSAC Chair to recommend the reappointment of all current SSAC members to full or partial terms to implement the Bylaws revisions.

      Whereas, in January 2020 the SSAC Membership Committee initiated an annual review of SSAC members whose terms are ending 31 December 2020 and submitted to the SSAC its recommendations for reappointments in June 2020.

      Whereas, on 29 June 2020, the SSAC members approved the reappointments.

      Whereas, the SSAC recommends that the Board reappoint the following SSAC members to three-year terms: Greg Aaron, Benedict Addis, KC Claffy, Lyman Chapin, Geoff Huston, Barry Leiba, Russ Mundy, Rod Rasmussen, Chris Rosenraad, and Mark Seiden.

      Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on behalf of the SSAC, requests that the Board should appoint Steve Crocker to the SSAC for a three-year term beginning immediately upon approval of the Board and ending on 31 December 2023.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.02), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and appoints Rod Rasmussen as Chair of the SSAC for a three-year term beginning on 01 January 2021 and ending on 31 December 2023.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.03), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and reappoints the following SSAC members to three-year terms beginning 01 January 2021 and ending 31 December 2023: Greg Aaron, Benedict Addis, KC Claffy, Lyman Chapin, Geoff Huston, Barry Leiba, Russ Mundy, Rod Rasmussen, Chris Rosenraad, and Mark Seiden.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.04), that the Board appoints Steve Crocker to the SSAC beginning immediately upon approval of the Board and ending on 31 December 2023.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolutions 2020.09.10.02, 2020.09.10.03, and 2020.09.10.04. The Resolutions carried.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2020.09.10.02 – 2020.09.10.04

      According to Section 12.2(b) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board of Directors shall appoint the Chair and the members of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). The SSAC has completed its selection process for the role of Chair and requests Board consideration of the appointment of Rod Rasmussen as the SSAC Chair.

      The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables the SSAC to fulfill its role 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 accumulation of talented subject matter experts who have consented to volunteer their time and energies to the execution of the SSAC mission.

      Steve Crocker is well known in the ICANN community. He served as the founding chair of the SSAC beginning in 2002. He then served on the ICANN Board from 2008-2017, as Chairman of the Board from 2011-2017. Dr. Crocker is CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro, Inc., a start-up company focused on dynamic sharing of information across the Internet and on the deployment of improved security protocols on the Internet. He was part of the team in the late 1960s and early 1970s that developed the protocols for the Arpanet and laid the foundation for today's Internet. He organized the Network Working Group, which was the forerunner of the modern Internet Engineering Task Force and initiated the Request for Comment series of notes through which protocol designs are documented and shared. The SSAC looks forward to working with Steve Crocker again and believes he will bring important skills and breadth of experience to the Committee.

      This resolution is an organizational administrative function for which no public comment is required. The appointment of SSAC members is in the public interest and in furtherance of ICANN's mission as it contributes to the commitment of the ICANN to strengthen the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS

    2. Root Server Organization (RSO) appointments to the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)

      Kaveh Ranjbar introduced the agenda item. The ICANN Bylaws require that the RSSAC membership appointment be for a three year term, that the RSSAC Chair shall provide recommendations to the Board regarding RSSAC appointments, and that the RSSAC Chair shall stagger appointment recommendations so that approximately one-third of the RSSAC membership is considered for appointment or reappointment each year. The proposed resolution is being taken pursuant to these Bylaws requirements. Kaveh read the proposed resolution into the record.

      Danko Jevtović moved and Tripti Sinha seconded. The Chair called for a vote and Board took the following action:

      Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws call for the establishment of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) with the role to advise the ICANN community and ICANN Board of Directors on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System.

      Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws call for the ICANN Board of Directors to appoint one RSSAC member from each root server operator organization, based on recommendations from the RSSAC Chair.

      Whereas, the RSSAC Chair has recommended to the ICANN Board of Directors the appointments of representatives from Cogent; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE) Network Coordination Centre; University of Southern California – Information Sciences Institute; and Widely Integrated Distributed Environment (WIDE) Project to the RSSAC.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.05), the ICANN Board of Directors appoints Barbara Schleckser to the RSSAC through 31 December 2022, and Wesley Hardaker, Jun Murai, Kaveh Ranjbar, and Paul Vixie to the RSSAC through 31 December 2023.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2020.09.10.05. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2020.09.10.05

      In May 2013, the root server operator organizations agreed to an initial membership of representatives for the RSSAC, each nominating an individual. The ICANN Board of Directors approved the initial membership of the RSSAC in July 2013 with staggered terms. The current term for the representatives from Cogent; Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE) Network Coordination Centre; University of Southern California – Information Sciences Institute; and Widely Integrated Distributed Environment (WIDE) Project expires 31 December 2020. The current term for the representative from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) expires 31 December 2022. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) replaces its representative.

      Today, the Board is taking action pursuant to Article 12, Section 12.2 (c)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws to appoint members to the RSSAC.

      The appointment of RSSAC members is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on the ICANN organization that has not already been accounted for in the budgeted resources necessary for ongoing support of the RSSAC.

      This resolution is an organizational administrative function for which no public comment is required. The appointment of RSSAC members contributes to the public interest and the commitment of the ICANN organization to strengthen the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

    3. Transfer of the .CO (Colombia) top-level domain to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies

      Nigel Roberts introduced the agenda item. He explained that the proposed Board resolution concerns a transfer of the .CO top-level domain to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies. He noted that the Board's role in the process is to confirm that IANA has followed the proper procedures.

      León Sánchez moved and Matthew Shears seconded. The Chair called for a vote and the Board took the following action:

      Resolved (2020.09.10.06), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Naming Function Contract with ICANN, IANA has reviewed and evaluated the request to transfer the .CO top-level domain to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2020.09.10.06. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2020.09.10.06

      Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

      In accordance with the IANA Naming Function Contract, PTI, in the performance of the IANA Naming Function (IANA) has evaluated a request for ccTLD transfer and is presenting its report to the Board for review. This review by the Board is intended to ensure that the proper procedures were followed.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The proposal is to approve a request to transfer the .CO top-level domain and assign the role of manager to the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies.

      Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

      In the course of evaluating this transfer application, IANA consulted with the applicant and other significantly interested parties. As part of the application process, the applicant needs to describe consultations that were performed within the country concerning the ccTLD, and their applicability to their local Internet community.

      What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

      IANA is not aware of any significant issues or concerns raised by the community in relation to this request.

      What significant materials did the Board review?

      The Board reviewed the following evaluations:

      • The domain is eligible for transfer, as the string under consideration represents Colombia in the ISO 3166-1 standard;
      • The relevant government has been consulted and does not object;
      • The proposed manager and its contacts agree to their responsibilities for managing this domain;
      • The proposal has demonstrated appropriate significantly interested parties' consultation and support;
      • The proposal does not contravene any known laws or regulations;
      • The proposal ensures the domain is managed locally in the country, and are bound under local law;
      • The proposed manager has confirmed they will manage the domain in a fair and equitable manner;
      • The proposed manager has demonstrated appropriate operational and technical skills and plans to operate the domain;
      • The proposed technical configuration meets the technical conformance requirements;
      • No specific risks or concerns relating to Internet stability have been identified; and
      • Staff have provided a recommendation that this request be implemented based on the factors considered.

      These evaluations are responsive to the appropriate criteria and policy frameworks, such as "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation" (RFC 1591), "GAC Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains" and the ccNSO "Framework of Interpretation of current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of country-code Top Level Domain Names."

      As part of the process, Delegation and Transfer reports are posted at http://www.iana.org/reports.

      What factors the Board found to be significant?

      The Board did not identify any specific factors of concern with this request.

      Are there positive or negative community impacts?

      The timely approval of country-code domain name managers that meet the various public interest criteria is positive toward ICANN's overall mission, the local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to serve, and responsive to obligations under the IANA Naming Function Contract.

      Are there financial impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

      The administration of country-code delegations in the DNS root zone is part of the IANA functions, and the delegation action should not cause any significant variance on pre-planned expenditure. It is not the role of ICANN to assess the financial impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains within a country.

      Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

      ICANN does not believe this request poses any notable risks to security, stability or resiliency. This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

    4. Board Governance Committee's Recommendation on the Appointment of the 2021 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect

      Tripti Sinha, the Chair of the Board Governance Committee (BGC), introduced the agenda item and explained that she has recused herself from all discussions and consideration of the matter out of an abundance of caution to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest as she is a Nominating Committee (NomCom) appointed Board member who is subject to reselection next year. Tripti noted that she will accept the BGC's recommendation. The Chairman of the Board noted that other BGC members who are also appointed by the NomCom recused themselves from all discussions and consideration of this matter out of an abundance of caution.

      León Sánchez briefed the Board on the BGC's recommendation for the 2021 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect. The BGC made its recommendations after reviewing all submitted Expressions of Interests and candidate interviews. León noted that the names of the selected candidates have been redacted from the resolutions document for the time being and that the names will not be publicly disclosed until after the BGC Chair, or her designee(s), has personally notified the selected candidates as well as those who were not selected immediately following the Board meeting. León further noted that all Board members have received and been able to review the Board briefing materials containing the names of the candidates recommended by the BGC in advance of the meeting. León read the proposed resolution into the record.

      Ron da Silva moved and Nigel Roberts seconded. The Chair called for a vote and Board took the following action:

      Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) reviewed the Expressions of Interest from candidates for the 2021 Nominating Committee ("NomCom") Chair and Chair-Elect and conducted interviews of candidates.

      Whereas, the BGC has recommended that Ole Jacobsen be appointed as the 2021 NomCom Chair and Tracy Hackshaw be appointed as the 2021 NomCom Chair-Elect.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.07), the Board hereby appoints Ole Jacobsen as the 2021 Nominating Committee Chair and Tracy Hackshaw as the 2021 Nominating Committee Chair-Elect.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2020.09.10.07. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2020.09.10.07

      ICANN's Bylaws require the Board to appoint the Nominating Committee (NomCom) Chair and NomCom Chair-Elect. See ICANN Bylaws, Article 8, Section 8.1. The Board has delegated the responsibility for recommending the NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect for Board approval to the Board Governance Committee (BGC). (See BGC Charter, Section II.G.) The BGC oversaw the posting of a call for expressions of interest (EOI) on 29 May 2020 seeking EOIs by 22 June 2020 (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-05-29-en), which was then extended to 7 July 2020 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-06-22-en).

      As input into the selection of 2021 the NomCom leadership positions, the BGC reviewed and discussed the EOIs received and interviewed the candidates. Following the above actions and further discussion, the BGC agreed on recommendations to the Board for the 2021 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect.

      The Board has considered and agrees with the BGC's recommendation for the 2021 NomCom Chair and 2021 NomCom Chair-Elect. The Board also would like to thank all who expressed interest in becoming part of the 2021 NomCom leadership.

      Appointing a NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect identified through a public EOI process, including interviews of the candidates, is in the public interest as it positively affects the transparency and accountability of ICANN. It is also fully consistent with ICANN's mission.

      Adopting the BGC's recommendation has no financial impact on ICANN that was not otherwise anticipated, and will not negatively impact the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require Public Comment.

    5. Acceptance of At-Large2 Review Final Implementation Report

      Avri Doria, the Chair of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), introduced the agenda item. Avri acknowledged the exemplary manner in which the At-Large carried on with this effort. The OEC has reviewed all the work and is recommending that the Board accept the At-Large2 Review final implementation report. The OEC is also recommending that the Board request that the ALAC provide a written or oral update to the OEC by 31 December 2020 on the two recommendations for which implementation is not yet fully completed and, if not completed by then, every six months thereafter until all implementation is completed.

      Avri moved and León Sánchez seconded. The Chair called for a vote and Board took the following action:

      Whereas, on 27 January 2019 the Board accepted the At-Large Review Implementation Plan and directed the At-Large Advisory Committee to provide the Board with regular reporting on the implementation efforts.

      Whereas, the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group , with At-Large Advisory Committee approval and oversight, provided the Board via the OEC with semi-annual updates on the progress of implementation efforts until such time that the implementation efforts conclude.

      Whereas, the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group submitted a Final Implementation Report to the OEC on 30 June 2020, detailing the completion of implementation of the recommendations arising out of the second At-Large Review and documenting that two recommendations are not yet fully implemented.

      Whereas, the OEC acknowledged that the outstanding steps of the At-Large's implementation work have dependencies beyond the control of the At-Large and/or contain aspects of continuous improvements.

      Whereas, the OEC recommends that the Board accept the At-Large2 Review final implementation report issued by the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group and approved by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 23 June 2020, thereby completing the second At-Large Review.

      Whereas the OEC recommends that the Board request that the ALAC provide a written or oral update to the OEC by 31 December 2020 on the two recommendations for which implementation is not yet fully completed and, if not completed by then, every six months thereafter until all implementation is completed.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.08), the Board accepts the At-Large2 Review final implementation report of the second At-Large Review issued by the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group, which marks the completion of this organizational review in accordance with Bylaws Article 4 Section 4.4. The Board encourages the At-Large Advisory Committee to continue monitoring the impact of the implementation of the recommendations from the second Review of the ALAC as part of its continuous improvement process.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.09), the Board acknowledges the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group's implementation work aimed at improving the At-Large's effectiveness, transparency, and accountability, in line with the proposed timeline as set out in the adopted At-Large2 Review Implementation Plan.

      Resolved (2020.09.10.10), the Board requests the At-Large Advisory Committee to provide the OEC with a written or oral progress update on the two remaining issues "Member Engagement and Criteria" and "Absence of consistent performance metrics" by 31 December 2020. In the event that implementation is not completed by 31 December 2020, the ALAC shall continue to provide such updates to the OEC on a six-monthly basis until such time that the implementation efforts conclude.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolutions 2020.09.10.08, 2020.09.10.09, and 2020.09.10.10. The Resolutions carried.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2020.09.10.08 – 2020.09.10.10

      Why is the Board addressing the issue?

      ICANN organizes independent reviews of its supporting organizations and advisory committees as prescribed in Article 4 Section 4.4 of the ICANN Bylaws, to ensure ICANN's multistakeholder model remains transparent and accountable, and to improve its performance.

      This action completes the second At-Large Review and is based on the final implementation report, as adopted by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the final report of the independent examiner, ITEMS International, as well as the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group's (ARIWG) assessment of the recommendations as adopted by the ALAC. Following the assessment of all pertinent documents and community feedback by the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), the Board is now in a position to consider and accept the Final Report.

      The Board, with recommendation from the OEC, considered all relevant documents, including the Final Report, the At-Large Review Working Party Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization of Recommendations by Independent Examiner ("Feasibility Assessment"), and accepted the final report issued by the independent examiner on 23 June 2018. The Board adopted the Feasibility Assessment. Additionally, the Board directed the ALAC to: draft an implementation plan for the adopted recommendations with a realistic timeline that took into account the continuously high community workload and consideration of the prioritization proposed by the ARIWG; publish the plan no later than six (6) months after the Board's adoption of the Feasibility Assessment; ensure that the implementation plan includes definitions of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome; and report back regularly to the Board on its implementation progress. On 27 January 2019, the Board accepted the Implementation Plan provided by the ARIWG and approved by the ALAC on 27 November 2018, and directed the ARIWG to provide semi-annual updates to the OEC until such time that the implementation efforts have concluded.

      The ARIWG submitted its final implementation report to the OEC on 30 June 2020. The report showed that implementation of all items was complete with the exception of two areas: "Member Engagement and Criteria" [issue ID #2] and "Absence of consistent performance metrics" [issue ID #16]. On issue ID #2, the cross-regional At-Large Structure (ALS) Mobilization Working Party has yet to complete "reviewing the entire body of rules and processes associated with ALSes. Once finalized, these will need to be reviewed by the RALOs, ratified by the ALAC, and then submitted for Board approval." A Bylaws change may also be required to "clarify the changes being made in respect to ALSes". On issue ID#16, the ALAC is awaiting the "implementation of a CRM tool throughout ICANN org". Membership data will then be transferred to that tool to help professionalize the At-Large member management, including the effective capturing of relevant metrics.

      The OEC considered these issues during its deliberation of the final implementation report. The OEC noted that some aspects of the outstanding implementation have dependencies that are beyond the control of the At-Large or contain aspects of continuous improvements. Therefore, the OEC recommended it is appropriate for the Board to accept the final implementation report, formally concluding the second At-Large organizational review. The OEC also recommended to the Board that it request the At-Large report to the OEC on the outstanding implementation steps, ensuring accountability over the conclusion of the entire implementation process.

      The Board agreed with the OEC's recommendations.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The proposal being considered is that the Board accepts the Final Report of the ARIWG in order to conclude the second organizational review of the At-Large. The proposal also includes that the Board request the ALAC to provide progress updates to the OEC on the outstanding implementation steps on two recommendations.

      Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

      The Board, through the OEC, consulted with the ARIWG, who was responsible for the implementation, and monitored the progress of the review as well as the progress of the implementation of review recommendations.

      What concerns, or issues were raised by the community?

      The implementation work conducted by the ALAC followed its standard best practices to ensure transparency and accountability. No concerns were voiced by the community.

      What significant materials did the Board review?

      The Board reviewed relevant Bylaws sections, Organizational Review Process documentation, At-Large2 Review Implementation Plan, and the ARIWG reports to the Board.

      What factors did the Board find to be significant?

      The Board found several factors to be significant, contributing to the effective completion of the implementation work:

      • Convening a dedicated group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations.
      • Adherence to the implementation plan that included a timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes, as well as ways to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome.
      • Timely reporting on the progress of implementation.

      The ARIWG reported in the final implementation report that two recommendations are not yet fully implemented. Following recommendations by the OEC, the Board noted that some aspects of the outstanding implementation have dependencies that are beyond the control of the At-Large and acknowledged that some of the remaining implementation steps are part of ongoing continuous improvements efforts. Based on this, the Board accepted the Final Report, formally concluding the second At-Large organizational review, while requesting an update on the outstanding implementation steps by 31 December 2020, and, if not completed by then, every six months thereafter, until the implementation is completed.

      Are there positive or negative community impacts?

      This Board action is expected to have a positive impact on the community by acknowledging and highlighting an effective completion of implementation of At-Large2 Review Recommendations.

      Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

      This Board action is anticipated to have no additional fiscal impact to that noted in the Board's acceptance of the At-Large Review Implementation Plan. The ramifications of this resolution on the ICANN organization, the community and the public are anticipated to be positive, as this Board action signifies an important milestone for organizational reviews.

      Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

      This Board action is not expected to have a direct effect on security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS.

      How is this action within ICANN's mission and what is the public interest served in this action?

      The Board's action is consistent with ICANN's commitment pursuant to section 4.1 of the Bylaws to ensure ICANN's multistakeholder model remains transparent and accountable, and to improve the performance of its supporting organizations and advisory committees. This action will serve the public interest by fulfilling ICANN's commitment to maintaining and improving its accountability and transparency.

      Is public comment required prior to Board action?

      No public comment is required.

    6. AOB

      No resolutions taken. Merike Käo expressed that the SSAC is extremely pleased to welcome Steve Crocker back to the SSAC as he was instrumental in creating SSAC.

      The Chair then called the meeting to a close.

Published on 23 October 2020

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."