Skip to main content
Resources

Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi

  1. Consent Agenda
  2. President's Report
  3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report
  4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of Expressions of Interest Proposal
  5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
  6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System
  7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights
  8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation Procedure (RRDRP) – Community
  9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement
  10. IDN Variants
  11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan
  12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support
  13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process
  14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan
  15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN
  16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010
  17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 10-1
  18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 10-1
  19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program
  20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants
  21. Other Business
  22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers
  23. Thanks to Sponsors
  24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams
  25. Thanks to Local Hosts
  26. Thanks to Meeting Participants

1. Consent Agenda

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

1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting

Resolved (2010.03.12.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 4 February 2010 Board Meeting.

1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting

Resolved (2010.03.12.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 19 February 2010 Board Meeting.

1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board

Whereas, the Board Committees have reported their activities in Nairobi at a public session;

Resolved (2010.03.12.03), reports of the Audit Committee of the Board, Board Governance Committee, Finance Committee of the Board, IANA Committee of the Board, Public Participation Committee of the Board, Risk Committee of the Board and the Structural Improvement Committee are received.

1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor

Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws in Article XVI, Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm>, requires that after the end of the fiscal year, the books of ICANN must be audited by certified public accountants. The Bylaws also state that the appointment of the fiscal auditors shall be the responsibility of the Board;

Whereas, the Audit Committee of the Board discussed requirements and best practices for Audit Partner rotation;

Whereas, the Chair of the Board Audit Committee has received a proposal from Moss Adams LLP to be engaged as the auditor for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2010, with the proviso that a new Audit Partner be assigned to the ICANN engagement; and

Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has reviewed the proposed engagement letter and professional services agreement and recommends to the Board that ICANN enter into this engagement.

Resolved (2010.03.12.04), the Board authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to engage Moss Adams LLP as the auditors for the financial statements for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2010.

1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group

Whereas, the Board Review Working Group suggested that the Structural Improvements Committee consider a review of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), to complement the review of the ICANN Board of Directors;

Whereas, there are no specific Bylaws provisions for the performance of the review of the TLG, as the TLG cannot be identified as a Supporting Organization or an Advisory Committee of ICANN, which are subject to review according to Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 21 January 2010 meeting agreed to progress the idea of conducting a review focused on the effectiveness of the TLG, and asked staff to present proposals for processes to be adopted in order to perform this review; and

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 6 March 2010 meeting considered that due to the relatively low complexity of the review, it can be conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group, with the assistance of ICANN staff, in a relatively short period of time with minimal budget implications.

Resolved (2010.03.12.05), the Board authorizes the review of the Technical Liaison Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.06), that this review will aim: (i) to understand whether the TLG arrangements set forth in Article XI-A, Section 2 of the Bylaws, to ‘connect the Board with appropriate sources of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's activities,' are still effective and sufficient; (ii) to understand whether the TLG has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (iii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve the TLG's effectiveness.

Resolved (2010.03.12.07), that the review of the TLG will be conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group and assisted by ICANN staff.

Resolved (2010.03.12.08), that the SIC is authorized to establish a TLG review Working Group and adopt all the necessary measures to perform the review, in consultation with the community, and to report to the Board through the SIC on the final findings and recommendations.

1.6 Thanks to and dissolution of: Board review Working Group, Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) review Working Group

Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group have delivered to the Structural Improvements Committee their final reports of activity, which contain conclusions and recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of these structures;

Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group, have fulfilled the tasks assigned to them at the time of their establishment, and they can now be dissolved;

Whereas, the Board agrees with the Structural Improvements Committee on its proposal to thank the Chairs and Members of these Working Groups for their commitment and ability to fulfill the tasks assigned to them; and

Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee will now provide the Board with a set of suggested actions to address the conclusions and recommendations of the final reports of these three Working Groups;

Resolved (2010.03.12.09), the Board receives the final reports of the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.10), the Board thanks the Chairs and Members of these review Working Groups for their commitment and ability to fulfill their task:

  • Board review Working Group: Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Amadeu Abril, Steve Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Rita Rodin Johnston and Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
  • NomCom finalization review Working Group: Thomas Roessler (Chair), Alejandro Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein and George Sadowsky (non-voting).
  • SSAC review Working Group: Dennis Jennings (Chair), Robert Blokzijl, Reinhard Scholl, and Suzanne Woolf.

Resolved (2010.03.12.11), the Board dissolves the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group.

Resolved (2010.03.12.12), the Board directs the Structural Improvements Committee to present a set of suggested actions for approval at the June 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final reports of these Working Groups.

1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation

Whereas, the Board has determined that existing GNSO Constituencies should regularly re-confirm their status as organizations operating consistently with the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, openness, fairness and representativeness;

Whereas, the Board asked existing GNSO Constituencies to seek Board reconfirmation prior to the Nairobi meeting; and

Whereas, the GNSO Council Work Team developing recommendations for GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholders is still progressing in its work, and completion of those efforts will likely produce final charters that are much more effective in linking GNSO-structure operations to the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, fairness, openness and representativeness.

Resolved (2010.03.12.13), the Board extends the timetable for those reconfirmation submissions to the ICANN International meeting in Brussels, Belgium.

2. President's Report

(For discussion only.)

3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report

(For discussion only.)

4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of Expressions of Interest Proposal

Whereas the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal “expressions of interest”, and provide a plan for Board consideration in December 2009, including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a proposed action;

Whereas ICANN staff presented an analysis of the potential benefits of an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and developed a preliminary EOI process model for ICANN Board discussion;

Whereas, the ICANN Board consideration of the model was deferred until the Nairobi meeting to encourage full debate on aspects of the proposed EOI model, consistent with advice from the GAC in its letter to ICANN dated 26 January 2010;

Whereas ICANN staff has received substantial public comment on the EOI proposal, including two public comment sessions and at the public forum at the 37 th International Meeting in Nairobi, with thoughtful and substantial contributions regarding proceeding with an EOI and the proposed form of the EOI, raising concerns both in support of an in opposition to proceeding with the EOI;

Whereas, on 10 March 2010 the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) issued the “GAC Communiqué – Nairobi” questioning the benefits of pursuing further a separate EOI as it could distract attention and resources from finalizing the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, the Board has carefully considered all public comments received on the EOI;

Whereas, the Board has determined that the potential benefits of proceeding with an EOI were outweighed by the costs of potential delay to the New gTLD Program, the lack of certainty about the date when the overarching issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of the Board, the consequential difficulty of synchronizing the launch of the New gTLD Program with the proposed EOI, and preferring to focus staff resources on resolving the remaining issues; and

Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in the New gTLD Program continue to progress.

Resolved (2010.03.12.14) the Board withdraws the Expressions of Interest proposal from consideration.

Resolved (2010.03.12.15) the Board directs the CEO to continue to work towards the launch of the New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2010.03.12.16) the Board thanks the community for all of its work on the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the collaborative community work to initiate the Board's consideration of the proposal.

5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration

Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and more;

Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or non-integration;\

Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect consumer data protection;

Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and

Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.

Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.

Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.

6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System

Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that trademark protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD Program, the Board called for the creation of a community-lead Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop rights protection mechanisms;

Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) that were subject to public comment;

Whereas, the Board asked the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposals to determine whether they are consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives;

Whereas, the GNSO established the Special Trademark Issue Review Team (STI) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposal in response to the Board's request;

Whereas the GNSO's STI developed endorsements and revisions for the Clearinghouse and URS, which the GNSO unanimously approved and then posted for public comment;

Whereas ICANN considered public comment and revised the Clearinghouse and URS proposals to reflect the GNSO-STI model, making few adjustments in keeping with public comment received on the GNSO-STI proposal;

Whereas, the Board believes that the current proposals reflect the very thoughtful public comments received and the tireless good work conducted by both the IRT and the GNSO-STI; and

Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the Board supports the substantive content of the Clearinghouse and URS proposals that were posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment and expects that they will be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.19), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on the Clearinghouse proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.20), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on the URS proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.21), the Board greatly appreciates all of the hard work conducted by the IRT, and more recently by the GNSO-STI, as well as the public in assisting ICANN with the development of both the Clearinghouse and URS proposals in the furtherance of trademark protection.

7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights

Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that Trademark Protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD Program, the Board called for the creation of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop some rights protection mechanisms;

Whereas, the IRT's work included a proposal for a Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP), that was posted for public comment to provide an additional rights protection mechanism in the new gTLD process;

Whereas, ICANN considered public comment, revised the PDDRP, and the Board directed that it be included in version 3 of the Applicant Guidebook; and

Whereas, the Board approves the concept of a PDDRP, which should be included in the New gTLD Program as another avenue of trademark protection; in light of additional public comments received, ICANN further revised the PDDRP, which is currently posted for another round of public comments.

Resolved (2010.03.12.22), ICANN should take the remaining public comment from the community and synthesize those comments, as appropriate, into a final draft PDDRP, ensuring that the varying interests of the community are considered, and include the final draft in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.23), the Board greatly appreciates the cooperation, involvement and assistance the community has provided and continues to offer to assist in developing a robust and productive PDDRP as another trademark protection mechanism within the New gTLD Program and looks forward to this collaboration with the community producing further improvements.

8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation Procedure (RRDRP) – Community

Whereas, the New gTLD recommendations from the GNSO included an implementation guideline that suggested that "a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application";

Whereas, based on the GNSO's recommendation, staff has developed a string contention resolution process that can in some cases grant priority to an applicant endorsed by a delineated and substantial community with a strong nexus to the applied-for string, so long as the applicant agrees to implement and enforce registration restrictions in the gTLD;

Whereas, a community-based gTLD's registration restrictions could include not only restrictions on who can register in a gTLD, but also name selection, content and use rules consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD;

Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider would allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding enforcement of community restrictions; and

Whereas, the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) was published for public comment on 31 May 2009 < http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm >, along with an explanatory memorandum < http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf > describing the procedure and the rationale for incorporating it into the New gTLD Program. The draft procedure has received little public comment since, and no comment indicating that it should not be implemented.

Resolved (2010.03.12.24), ICANN shall publish a final draft version of the RRDRP in Draft Applicant Guidebook 4.

Resolved (2010.03.12.25), ICANN shall also consider whether this or a similar post-delegation dispute resolution procedure could be implemented for use by government-supported TLD operators where the government withdraws its support of the TLD.

9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement

Whereas public comment has indicated that the requirement for gTLD strings to be at least three characters would limit the utility of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) gTLDs in some regions of the world;

Whereas, the GNSO IDN Working Group previously recommended that applications for fewer than 3-character gTLDs were allowed in the gTLD program, based on a case-by-case evaluation;

Whereas an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as a result of discussion during the meeting in Sydney, Australia, to assist in implementation of a set of rules that could be employed to allocate IDN strings of fewer than three characters where appropriate;

Whereas, the team completed its work and published a recommendation for relaxing the three-character requirement in a report for public comment that included specific requirements for when 2-character gTLDs can be delegated, and deferred the notion of 1-character gTLDs pending policy issues;

Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received; and

Whereas, a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the New gTLD Program has also been posted for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.26), ICANN shall take into account remaining public comments on the proposed model and develop a final proposal to be included in draft version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the Board supports the substantive content of the model that was posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment and expects that it will be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.03.12.27), ICANN thanks those members of the community who have devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of trademark rights protection.

10. IDN Variants

Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs;

Whereas, an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as a result of discussions at the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, to make recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level;

Whereas, the IDN Implementation Support Team has completed its work and published its recommendations in a report for public comment and recommends that ICANN is to study the usability of the DNAME resource record as part of a supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants;

Whereas the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is consistent with the Team's recommendations;

Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN Implementation Support Team for allocation/reservation of desired variant TLDs, pending identification of a mechanism for delegation and management of the variant TLDs in the New gTLD Program, has been posted for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.28), ICANN shall take into account remaining public comments on the proposed model and based on such comments develop a proposal to be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook;.

Resolved (2010.03.12.29), the Board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake a study on the usability of the DNAME resource record as a part of a supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants.

Resolved (2010.03.12.30), ICANN thanks those members of the community who have devoted their time and energy to the work on these issues, and urges the community to collaborate on the ongoing testing of variant mechanisms.

11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan

Whereas, New gTLD Program communications activities began in June 2008 with the policy approval during ICANN's Meeting in Paris;

Whereas, staff has provided regular program updates to the community and Board, has continued to publish critical information in six languages, and has responded to public comments in a timely and transparent way;

Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan < http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf > that supports the New gTLD Program implementation plan and considers a full range of global audiences;

Whereas, ICANN recognizes that the communications plan is a living document, and should be flexible to accommodate evolving circumstances and attend to the needs of specific regions and audiences around the world;

Whereas, ICANN recognizes that one of the main goals of the communications plan is to inform potential applicants around the world about the opportunities afforded by new gTLDs; and

Whereas, the Board has listened to the community input about intensifying communications activities in various regions around the world.

Resolved (2010.03.12.31), that ICANN will implement a formal launch of communications activities for the New gTLD Program, tailored according to the relevant program phases and developments, recognizing that the plan will need to be flexible to respond to unforeseen circumstances and adapt to the needs of regional audiences.

Resolved (2010.03.12.32), that ICANN will continue to take into account the advice of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees in the New gTLD Program communication activities. Starting at ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels, ICANN will work with the SOs and ACs to leverage the networks and design the timeline around the actual launch.

Resolved (2010.03.12.33), the CEO is directed to begin the formal communications plan for the New gTLD Program when the overarching issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the Board.

12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support

Whereas, on 16 November 2009 ICANN launched the IDN Fast Track process pursuant to the Board's resolution on 30 October 2009;

Whereas, in the implementation of the process, staff has identified an issue relating to instances in the Fast Track Process where more than one official language or script exists within a country/territory, and where requests are for multiple corresponding strings that are considered equivalent, so that users of the community accessing domains under all versions of the string expect that each of them will resolve to the same address;

Whereas, the Board requested Ram Mohan and Harald Alvestrand to establish a Working Group as a matter of urgency to address this topic, and invite interested Board members to participate.

Resolved (2010.03.12.34), that an Equivalent Strings Support Board Working Group (ES-WG) is established to review the issues, develop a recommendation of a framework for resolution and principles to guide staff implementation of the framework, and remain available for consultation during staff's implementation work.

Resolved (2010.03.12.35), that the Working Group is comprised as follows: Dennis Jennings, Chair; Harald Alvestrand; Rod Beckstrom; Steve Crocker; Rita Rodin Johnston; Ram Mohan; Thomas Narten, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Suzanne Woolf.

Resolved (2010.03.12.36), that the Working Group's mandate will end at the conclusion of the Board's 2010 Annual General Meeting.

13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process

Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process on 16 November 2009 as set forth in the Board resolution of 30 October 2009;

Whereas, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in Sydney, Board members convened the Implementation Support Team to provide recommendations on how to manage IDN ccTLD strings;

Whereas, the Fast Track Final Implementation Plan states that the limitation on the number of IDN ccTLDs is one per official language or script per country, and defines the policy under which requests are processed;

Whereas, the Board, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in Nairobi, requested Harald Alvestrand and Ram Mohan to convene a working group, the Equivalent Strings Support Working Group (ES-WG) to address instances in the Fast Track Process where more than one official language or script exists within a country/territory, and where requests are for multiple corresponding strings that are considered equivalent, so that users of the community accessing domains under all versions of the string expect that each of them will resolve to the same address (hereafter referred to as “Synchronized IDN ccTLDs”).

Whereas, the ES-WG determined that developing a formal procedure to accept IDN ccTLD Fast Track requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings is appropriate and solves a real problem for the people in the community ICANN is seeking to serve by launching IDN ccTLDs;

Whereas, there appears to be general community consensus, and the ES-WG concurs, that any request for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must solve a significant problem for the communities that use the scripts, to be confirmed with sufficient due diligence by Staff, the details to be defined in an ES Implementation Plan;

Whereas, the ES-WG notes that all existing Fast Track requirements and rules apply for string selection and validation of the synchronized IDN ccTLD strings, and that DNS security and stability, as well as usability concerns, must be taken into account;

Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must be accompanied by adequate and verifiable procedures to enable convergence at every level of the domain named by the TLD following criteria established in the ES Implementation Plan, and to take immediate steps to remove any divergence should it occur; and

Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that if an improved technical standard for the delegation and management of Synchronized IDN ccTLDs is arrived at, and is applicable for such delegations, IDN ccTLD managers should migrate to that standard in a safe, stable and timely manner.

Resolved (2010.03.12.37), that pursuant to the ES-WG recommendations, the Board approves the principles identified above for the evaluation of synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process.

Resolved (2010.03.12.38), the CEO is directed to have prepared an ES Implementation Plan for the Fast Track evaluation of synchronized IDN ccTLDs using the ES-WG's principles as a framework.

14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan

(For discussion only.)

15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN

Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM Registry, Inc. filed an application for an Independent Review challenging ICANN's denial of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;

Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;

Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out their respective positions on the matter;

Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held in Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness testimony;

Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority Declaration with findings;

Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's Bylaws, "[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the IRP Panel Declaration at the Board's next meeting";

Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration throughout the week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed various paths toward conclusion; and

Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes to create a transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment.

Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent Review Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD.

Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration.

Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM matter for public comment within 14 days, which will enable the community to provide input on the Board processes. The report will be posted for public comment for no less than 45 days, which will enable the Board to consider the possible process options no later than ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels.

16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010

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

Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as host for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;

Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals received; and

Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board approve the budget for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting as proposed on 6 March 2010, without reference to a specific location.

Resolved (2010.03.12.42), the CEO is authorized to negotiate with those that submitted proposals to host the ICANN 2010 Latin America International Meeting, and make a recommendation to the Board for approval at an upcoming ICANN Board meeting.

17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 10-1

Resolved (2010.03.12.43) the Board accepts the determination of the BGC in response to the Reconsideration Request that the preliminary report was posted less than ten (10) hours later than the time required by the Bylaws.

18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 10-1

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) presented a recommendation in response to Reconsideration Request 10-1, recommending a change to the Bylaws calling for posting the Board approved resolutions within two (2) business days after the conclusion of each Board meeting and the preliminary report within seven (7) business days after the conclusion of each Board meeting; and

Whereas, the ICANN Board has considered the BGC's recommendation, and has determined that providing for earlier public access to the resolutions would be beneficial and is in keeping with ICANN's practices relating to accountability and transparency.

Resolved (2010.03.12.44), the ICANN Board hereby adopts the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee in relation to the timing of posting preliminary reports and agrees that providing earlier public access to resolutions is an advancement in ICANN's practices relating to accountability and transparency.

19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program

Whereas, the skills of Board members are critical to enable the ICANN Board to function effectively in the complex ICANN environment;

Whereas, Board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences;

Whereas, the Board is committed to the appropriate support for director training and development of Board member skills;

Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge Board members need to be effective in their roles as Board members;

Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for Board members has been positive; and

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee at the request of the Board has assessed the training environment for Board members and recommends that the Board approve this resolution.

Resolved (2010.03.12.45), the CEO is directed to develop a comprehensive Board Training Program that: identifies the skills and knowledge that individuals need, to be effective board members; produces training materials in a variety of media; is conducted according to a regular schedule; evaluates the effectiveness of the training; and adjusts the programs to meet the changing Board needs and the ICANN environment, and to report back to the Board on implementation issues, including costing, no later than ICANN's 2010 Annual General Meeting.

20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants

Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation;

Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis;

Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants;

Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;

Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and

Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries.

Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs .

21. Other Business

[TBD]

22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers

Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills which 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 end; and

Whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council expire after the Nairobi meeting:

  • Oscar Alejandro Robles-Garay, .mx - Oscar has been a ccNSO Councillor ever since the first ccNSO Council in 2004
  • Oscar Moreno, .pr – Oscar joined the ccNSO Council in 2007

Resolved, Oscar Robles and Oscar Moreno have earned the deep appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board wishes them well in all future endeavours.

23. Thanks to Sponsors

The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:

Ministry of Information and Communications; Communciations Commission of Kenya – CCK, Afilias Limited, NeuStar, Inc., .CO, VeriSign, Inc., GMO Registry, Inc., InterNetX, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), AfriNIC, Public Interest Registry, China Organizational Name Administration Center, .PRO, dotMobi, RU-CENTER, Nairobi Net Online, Kenya ICT Board, TESPOK (Telecommunication Service Providers Association), Safaricom, Zain, Internet Solution, Access Kenya Seacom, UUNET.

Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTANet (Kenya ICT Action Network) and Jamii Tours – Shuttle Buses.

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

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

The Board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLan Events Services, Inc. Special thanks are also given to Steve Morgan, Kris Van Der Plas for their audiovisual support. Paul Bevan, Audio Engineer, and Ted Bartles, Technical Director and Josh Baulch, Technical Support, Yvonne Asonga and Aitec Africa.

The Board would also like to thank the Kenyatta International Conference Centre and all the event staff for their support, as well the Sarova Stanley, Fairmont The Norfolk and the Laico Regency hotels.

25. Thanks to Local Hosts

The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer, Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC) for their support.

Special thanks to:

Honorable Samuel Pogishio – Minister of Information and Communication, Kenya

Dr. Bitange Ndemo - Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Information and Communication, Kenya

Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK

Abraham Ondeng - Ministry of Information and Communication/Local Organizing Committee

Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee

Joe Kiragu - .KE Administrator - KENIC/Local Organizing Committee

Alice Munyua - CCK Board/KENIC Board/Local Organizing Committee

Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee

Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP

Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP

Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee

Stephen Munguti - Security Committee

Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee

Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board

26. Thanks to Meeting Participants

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

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

Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.
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."