Skip to main content
Resources

Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board

  1. Consent Agenda:
    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
    2. Redelegation of the .VG domain representing the British Virgin Islands
    3. Redelegation of the .ZM domain representing Zambia
    4. SAC 062 Advisory on Name Collision
    5. Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group
    6. Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 49 Meeting
    7. Thank You to Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of ICANN 49 Meeting
    8. Thank You to the Local Hosts of the ICANN 49 Meeting
    9. Recognition of Community Members
  2. Main Agenda:
    1. Composition and Scope of the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
    2. ATRT2 Final Recommendations
    3. Collection of Benchmarking Metrics for the New gTLD Program to Support the future AoC Review on Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice
    4. Dissolution of Globalization Advisory Groups

 

  1. Consent Agenda:

    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes

      Resolved (2014.03.27.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 7 February 2014 and 17 February 2014 meetings of the ICANN Board.

    2. Redelegation of the .VG domain representing the British Virgin Islands

      Resolved (2014.03.27.02), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Functions contract, ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request to redelegate the .VG country-code top-level domain to the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of the British Virgin Islands. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.03), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, that certain portions of the rationale not appropriate for public distribution within the resolutions, preliminary report or minutes at this time due to contractual obligations, shall be withheld until public release is allowed according to those contractual obligations.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.02 – 2014.03.27.03

      Why is the Board addressing the issue now?

      In accordance with the IANA Functions contract, the ICANN staff has evaluated a request for ccTLD redelegation and is presenting its report to the Board for review. This review by the Board is intended to ensure that ICANN staff has followed the proper procedures.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The proposal is to approve a request to change the sponsoring organization (also known as the manager or trustee) of the .VG country-code top-level domain to the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of the British Virgin Islands.

      Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

      In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant and other 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 the local Internet community.

      What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

      Staff received multiple inquiries from the Internet community regarding the dispute within AdamsNames Ltd., the listed technical contact for .VG which is currently responsible for operating the name servers for the registry. The dispute raised concerns over the stability of the domain as well as over the pricing for registration of second-level domains under .VG.

      [Portions of Rationale Redacted]

      What factors did the Board find to be significant?

      The Board notes that the current technical contact for the domain does not agree to this change request. However, because the formally appointed manager of the domain is dissolved, and there is consensus within the local Internet community — including the government — that the domain should be redelegated, ICANN concludes that the interests of the local Internet community are best served by implementing 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 contributes positively to ICANN's overall mission, the local communities to which country- code top-level domains are designated to serve, and responsive to ICANN's obligations under the IANA Functions 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 previously planned expenditure. It is not ICANN's role 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 that does not require public comment.

    3. Redelegation of the .ZM domain representing Zambia

      Resolved (2014.03.27.04), as part of the exercise of its responsibilities under the IANA Functions contract, ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request to redelegate the .ZM country-code top-level domain to the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority. The documentation demonstrates that the proper procedures were followed in evaluating the request.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.05), the Board directs that pursuant to Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, that certain portions of the rationale not appropriate for public distribution within the resolutions, preliminary report or minutes at this time due to contractual obligations, shall be withheld until public release is allowed according to these contractual obligations.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.04 – 2014.03.27.05

      Why is the Board addressing the issue now?

      In accordance with the IANA Functions contract, the ICANN staff has evaluated a request for ccTLD redelegation and is presenting its report to the Board for review. This review by the Board is intended to ensure that ICANN staff has followed the proper procedures.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The proposal is to approve a request to change the sponsoring organization (also known as the manager or trustee) of the .ZM country-code top-level domain to the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority.

      Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

      In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with the applicant and other interested parties. As part of the application process, the applicant needs to describe consultations that were performed concerning the ccTLD within the country, and their applicability to their local Internet community.

      What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

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

      [Portions of Rationale Redacted]

      What factors did the Board find 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 contributes positively to ICANN's overall mission, the local communities to which country- code top-level domains are designated to serve, and responsive to ICANN's obligations under the IANA Functions 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 previously planned expenditure. It is not ICANN's role 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 that does not require public comment.

    4. SAC 062 Advisory on Name Collision

      Whereas, on 12 November 2013, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC062: SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk ("SAC062").

      Whereas, in SAC062, the SSAC advice integrates the New gTLD Program Committee's recent decisions on Name Collision Risks, and provides specific recommendations and advice for further work by ICANN to mitigate risks from name collision.

      Whereas, the Board previously adopted a resolution acknowledging receipt of the SSAC advice in SAC062 and directing ICANN's President and CEO to have the advice provided in SAC062 evaluated, and to produce a recommendation to the Board regarding the acceptance of that advice. The Board also directed that the feasibility and costs of implementing the advice be evaluated, and an implementation plan be provided with timelines and high-level milestones for review by the Board, no later than 120 days from the adoption of the resolution.

      Whereas, the Board has considered the advice of the SSAC contained in SAC062, in addition to the feasibility and costs of implementing the advice.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.06), the Board adopts the SSAC advice in SAC062, and directs ICANN's President and CEO, or his designee, to proceed with implementing the recommendations in SAC062.

      Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.27.06

      The ICANN Board's action today, addressing advice issued to the Board by the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), is part of the Board's role of considering advice put to it by the SSAC. Pursuant to Article XI, Section 2.2 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI, the SSAC "advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security, stability, and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems."

      On 5 August 2013, ICANN published Interisle's study entitled "Name Collision in the DNS" (the "Interisle study") as well as a staff proposal to mitigate the potential risks associated with name collisions involving new gTLDs. The staff proposal was posted for public comment and subsequently updated by staff based on the public comments. The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved the staff-revised proposal on 7 October 2013. The SSAC issued an advisory to the Board on 7 November 2013 concerning the mitigation of name collision risk (the "SAC062"). In SAC062, the SSAC provided advice to ICANN based on its assessment of the issues identified in the Interisle study and ICANN's proposal to mitigate potential collision risks.

      The action being approved today is to accept the SSAC's recommendations contained in SAC062 concerning name collisions. As noted in SAC062, the SSAC in general supports the NGPC proposal. SAC062 focuses on three specific areas of the NGPC proposal where SSAC has advice: the action on high-risk strings, trial delegation, and the development of a monitoring framework for the root zone. Specifically, the SSAC recommendations are as follows:

      Recommendation 1: ICANN should work with the wider Internet community, including at least the IAB and the IETF, to identify (1) what strings are appropriate to reserve for private namespace use and (2) what type of private namespace use is appropriate (i.e., at the domain top-level only or at any additional lower level).

      Recommendation 2: ICANN should explicitly consider the following questions regarding trial delegation and clearly articulate what choices have been made and why as part of its decision as to whether or not to delegate any TLD on a trial basis:

      • Purpose of the trial: What type of trial is to be conducted? What data are to be collected?
      • Operation of the trial: Should ICANN (or a designated agent) operate the trial or should the applicant operate it?
      • Emergency Rollback: What are the emergency rollback decision and execution procedures for any delegation in the root, and have the root zone partners exercised these capabilities?
      • Termination of the trial: What are the criteria for terminating the trial (both normal and emergency criteria)? What is to be done with the data collected? Who makes the decision on what the next step in the delegation process is?

      Recommendation 3: ICANN should explicitly consider under what circumstances un-delegation of a TLD is the appropriate mitigation for a security or stability issue. In the case where a TLD has an established namespace, ICANN should clearly identify why the risk and harm of the TLD remaining in the root zone is greater than the risk and harm of removing a viable and in-use namespace from the DNS. Finally, ICANN should work in consultation with the community, in particular the root zone management partners, to create additional processes or update existing processes to accommodate the potential need for rapid reversal of the delegation of a TLD.

      With respect to implementation of the SAC062 advice, Recommendation 1 may be implemented following the model used to implement SAC051: SSAC Report on Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure1, with regard to the development of a protocol replacement for WHOIS. The work (that was still undergoing at the time of drafting) in the IETF is a good example of collaboration between ICANN and the IETF communities. However, it should be noted that work undertaken by the IETF/IAB would follow the internal processes instituted in that forum/group, which likely will result in ICANN acting as a participant in the process rather than in a supervisory role. ICANN does not expect to incur extra costs from working on this issue with the IETF/IAB, since participating in these meetings and interacting with this community is already part of ICANN's normal business. Since ICANN would collaborate with the IETF/IAB, the timeline for implementation would be developed at the start of this collaboration. Given previous experiences, it is likely that in a timeframe of 6 to 18 months the advice could materialize in the form of a Request for Comments (RFC).

      With respect to Recommendations 2 and 3, ICANN is working with the community to develop a framework to address name collisions, which includes the specific measures identified in SAC062, in the mitigation strategy for name collision risks. The development of this framework is a follow-up action called for in the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan adopted by the NGPC on 7 October 2013. ICANN commissioned JAS Global Advisors LLC ("JAS") to produce the follow-up study, and to produce recommendations to be implemented by all new gTLD registries. The JAS study provides a set of recommendations that describe a comprehensive approach to reducing current and future DNS namespace collisions, including the measures recommended by the SSAC in SAC062. Currently, the recommendations in the JAS study are published for public comment. After the close of the public comment period, JAS will produce a final version of the study, taking into account public comments. The final JAS report is expected to be presented to the Board for consideration in May 2014. At that time, the Board will consider the fiscal impacts of the recommendations.

      As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed the following significant materials and documents:

      The SSAC's main function is to advise the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. Following this SSAC advice is expected to have a positive impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system. Accepting the SSAC's advice is not part of ICANN's organizational administrative function requiring public comment. However, it should be noted that SAC062 calls for ICANN to work with the Internet community, particularly IETF/IAB, regarding the reservation of strings for private namespaces. As a result, the implementation of the advice would involve public input and participation, including for example, ICANN's public comment process and the IETF's open process to develop RFCs. There is no anticipated fiscal impact from this decision that has not already been identified in the existing budget.

    5. Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group

      Whereas, in resolution 2011.09.17.10, the Board created the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group ("BGRI-WG"), which was tasked with leading the Board's coordination with the Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") on, among other things, the implementation of the GAC-related recommendations from the first Accountability and Transparency Review Team ("ATRT").

      Whereas, the Second ATRT ("ATRT2") submitted its Final Report and Recommendations to the Board on 31 December 2013 ("ARTR2 Report").

      Whereas, the ATRT2 Report contains recommendations regarding GAC Operations and Interactions.

      Whereas, the Board Governance Committee ("BGC") has recommended that the BGRI-WG's term be extended in order to lead the Board's coordination with the GAC on the implementation of the ATRT2 GAC-related recommendations that the Board adopts.

      Whereas, the BGC has recommended that current membership of BGRI-WG include the following Board members: Chris Disspain, Bill Graham – Co-Chair (alongside a GAC-identified Co-Chair), Erika Mann, Ram Mohan, Ray Plzak, and Mike Silber.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.07), the Board approves the extension of the term of the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group, which shall be tasked with leading the Board's coordination with the GAC on overseeing the implementation of the ATRT2 GAC-related recommendations that the Board adopts.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.08), the term of the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group shall be deemed concluded upon determination by, and notification to the ICANN Board chair from, the Working Group's co-chairs that its work in relation to the Board-adopted ATRT2 GAC-related recommendations is concluded.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.07 – 2014.03.27.08

      ICANN is committed to continuing to enhance and improve its accountability and transparency. It is important to extend the term of the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG) to oversee implementation of the ATRT2 GAC-related recommendations that the Board adopts. It will help ensure that the adopted recommendations are implemented in a manner that is efficient and effective, while enhancing the accountability and transparency of both the GAC and the Board. Further, as some of the Board members on the first formation of the BGRI-WG are no longer on the Board, the Board needed to re-visit the membership.

      This action will not have any financial impact on ICANN and there will be no impact on the security, stability or resiliency on the DNS as a result of this action.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

    6. Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 49 Meeting

      The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors: Verisign, Inc., Iron Mountain, Inc., NCC Group, Public Interest Registry, Afilias Limited, Radix Registry, PDR Solutions, Community .Asia, Neustar Inc., CentralNic, Trademark Clearinghouse, .CLUB Domains, Freenom, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), ARI Registry Services, Uniregistry, Corp., ZA Central Registry, AusRegistry Pty Ltd., and ICANNWIKI.

    7. Thank You to Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of ICANN 49 Meeting

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

      The Board would also like to thank the management and staff of the Fairmont Singapore and Swissôtel The Stamford for their assistance and for providing a wonderful facility to hold this event. Special thanks are extended to Canaan Lam, Senior Conference Services Manager, Shihui Teo, Conference Services Executive and Wendy Teo, Director of Sales.

    8. Thank You to the Local Hosts of the ICANN 49 Meeting

      The Board wishes to extend its thanks to Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore and Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) for their support of ICANN 49 in Singapore. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Yaacob bin Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and Information of Singapore, for his support of, and participation in, the meeting. The Board also extends its thanks to Mr. Leong Keng Thai, Chairman, SGNIC and Deputy Chief Executive/Director-General (Telecoms & Post), IDA.

    9. Recognition of Community Members

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

      Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service managing and coordinating the work of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees end.

      Whereas, the following members of the At-Large community are leaving their positions:

      • Holly Raiche – APRALO Chair
      • José Francisco Arce – LACRALO Chair
      • Sylvia Herlein Leite – LACRALO Secretariat
      • Avri Doria – At-Large New gTLD Working Group Chair

      Resolved (2014.03.27.09), Holly Raiche, José Francisco Arce, Sylvia Herlein Leite, and Avri Doria have earned the deep appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.

      Whereas, the following member of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council is leaving his position:

      • Roelof Meijer – ccNSO Councilor

      Resolved (2014.03.27.10), Roelof Meijer has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his terms of service, and the Board wishes him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.

      Whereas, the following member of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is leaving his position:

      • Chris Chaplow – Commercial and Business Users Constituency Vice Chair

      Resolved (2014.03.27.11), Chris Chaplow has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.

      Whereas, the following member of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group (GRRWG) is leaving his position:

      • David Archbold – GRRWG Chair

      Resolved (2014.03.27.12), David Archbold has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.

      Whereas, the following member of the Nominating Committee is leaving his position:

      • Rafik Dammak – Nominating Committee, Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) voting delegate

      Resolved (2014.03.27.13), Rafik Dammak has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.

      Whereas, the following member of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is recognized and will be remembered for his service.

      • Alain Berranger – in Memoriam – former Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) Chair

      Resolved (2014.03.27.14), Alain Berranger has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to the ICANN community.

      Whereas, the following member of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is recognized and will be remembered for his service.

      • Jon Bing – in Memoriam – former member of the GNSO Council

      Resolved (2014.03.27.15), Jon Bing has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for his service to the ICANN community.

  2. Main Agenda:

    1. Composition and Scope of the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee

      Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010, which called for a review, in three-years' time, of issues pertaining to the composition and size of the Nominating Committee (NomCom), and the recruitment and selection functions of the NomCom.

      Whereas, the Board previously approved the establishment of a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom), in accordance with the Charter recommended by the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC).

      Whereas, the Board desires to clarify the purpose of the BWG-NomCom presented in the previously adopted Charter.

      Whereas, the Board determined that the membership of the BWG-NomCom would be addressed by the Board Governance Committee (BGC).

      Whereas, the BGC has recommended that the following Board members be appointed as members of the BWG-NomCom: George Sadowsky – Chair, Ram Mohan, Ray Plzak and Mike Silber.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.16), the Board hereby adopts a revised Charter [PDF, 45 KB] of the BWG-NomCom, which clarifies that the purpose of the BWG-NomCom is to execute the recommendation of the Review Finalization Working Group (recommendation 10) to address the size and composition of the NomCom, and the recruitment and selection process of the NomCom.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.17), the Board hereby names the following Board members to serve on the BWG-NomCom: George Sadowsky – Chair, Ram Mohan, Ray Plzak and Mike Silber.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.16 – 2014.03.27.17

      This resolution is a continuation of the Board's 7 February 2014 resolution establishing a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC). At the time the Board adopted the resolution, the Board indicated that the membership of the BWG-NomCom would be addressed by the Board Governance Committee (BGC). As contemplated by the Board's 7 February 2014 resolution, the BGC has considered the membership of the BWG-NomCom and made a recommendation to the Board. The Board's action today is to adopt the recommendation of the BGC concerning the composition of the BWG-NomCom. In addition, the Board is adopting a revised BWG-NomCom Charter to clarify the scope of the work to be undertaken by the BWG-NomCom. Specifically, the purpose of the Charter is being revised to make clear that the purpose of the BWG-NomCom is to execute the recommendation of the Review Finalization Working Group (recommendation 10) to address the size and composition, and the recruitment and selection process of the NomCom.

      The effect of the Board's action today, establishing the composition of the BWG-NomCom and revising its Charter, will allow the BWG-NomCom to begin some of the important follow-up work identified in the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010.

      In considering this action, the Board reviewed the materials referenced below and the recommendation of the BGC.

      There is no anticipated fiscal impact from this decision, and there will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

      Related materials:

    2. ATRT2 Final Recommendations

      Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments requires ICANN to organize a review of its execution of commitments to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency that ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders.

      Whereas, the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) provided the Board with a Final Report ("ATRT2 Final Report") containing 12 recommendations, with numerous sub-parts, on 31 December 2013 (the "ATRT2 Recommendations").

      Whereas, the ATRT2 Final Report was posted for public comment from 9 January 2014 through 15 March 2014. The public comments will serve to inform Board action as the Board considers taking action on the ATRT2 Recommendations.

      Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments obligates ICANN to take action within six months of receipt of the ATRT2 Recommendations (i.e., by 30 June 2014).

      Resolved (2014.03.27.18), the Board acknowledges the ATRT2's hard work and dedication and thanks the ATRT2 for producing a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve ICANN's accountability and transparency.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.19), the Board thanks the ICANN community for commenting on the ATRT2 Recommendations and will consider this input as it takes further action on those Recommendations.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.20), the Board requests that the President and CEO, through his designee(s), provide the Board with a proposal for Board action on each Recommendation and, where practicable, proposed initial work plans and budgets for the Recommendations, along with a status report on efforts related to all Recommendations, taking into account all input received.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.21), the Board intends to respond timely to each of the Recommendations by 30 June 2014.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.18 – 2014.03.27.21

      To help ensure ICANN's multi-stakeholder model remains transparent and accountable, and to improve its performance, ICANN organizes community reviews of its accountability and transparency commitments no less frequently than every three years. The Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) submitted its Final Report and Recommendations to the Board on 31 December 2013 ("ATRT2 Recommendations"), which was duly posted for public comment. The Board's action today is consistent with ICANN's commitment pursuant to section 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders.

      The twelve ATRT2 Recommendations, and their subparts, have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and will be considered by ICANN carefully and transparently; necessary support and resources will be allocated. Adherence to the AoC requires ICANN to undertake the creation of proposals for Board action on the ATRT2 Recommendations.

      On 9 January 2014, ICANN posted for public comment the Final Report of the ATRT2 to inform Board action on the ATRT2's Recommendations. The summary and analysis of public comments is available for review at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en.htm. Community response to the ATRT2's Recommendations - through the public comment process – was received and will be considered.

      The Board resolution will have a positive impact on ICANN and the community as it reinforces ICANN's commitment to maintaining and improving its accountability and transparency.

      Development of implementation steps for the Board-adopted ATRT2 Recommendations will have a considerable budgetary impact on the organization. Significant staff resources will be devoted to the creation of the proposal to implement the Recommendations, and the proposal itself will identify further budgetary considerations in the implementation of the Recommendations. It is possible that some of ICANN's financial resources will need to be reallocated, as appropriate, to allow sufficient staff support.

      In considering this action, the Board reviewed the following significant materials:

      There are no known issues relating to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS at this time.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that requires public comment. The ATRT2 submitted its Final Report and Recommendations [PDF, 3.46 MB] to the Board on 31 December 2013, which was subsequently posted for public comment on 9 January 2014. The public comment period closed on 15 March 2014, and a report [PDF, 450 KB] providing a summary and analysis of the comments was published on 17 March 2014. The community provided comments to inform future Board action on the ATRT2 Recommendations. The comments will be taken into consideration by the Board as it takes further action on those Recommendations.

    3. Collection of Benchmarking Metrics for the New gTLD Program to Support the future AoC Review on Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice

      Whereas, in the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN has committed to organizing a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction of new gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice once new gTLDs have been in operation for one year.

      Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board requested that the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) provide input on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system. This request resulted in the Board receiving input in 2013 from the GNSO Council [PDF, 353 KB] and the ALAC [PDF, 491 KB], each offering recommendations on specific metrics.

      Whereas, the Board directed (in Resolutions 2013.07.18.05 – 2013.07.18.07 and 2013.09.28.13 – 2013.09.28.14) the ICANN President and CEO to convene a volunteer group (the Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice - [IAG]) in advance of a future AoC Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team. The volunteer group was tasked with evaluating the GNSO Council's and the ALAC's recommendations, and reporting to the Board on the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of adopting those recommendations.

      Whereas, on 4 March 2014, the IAG submitted to the Board its interim recommendations for the immediate collection of certain time-sensitive data elements ("Interim Recommendations") to establish a benchmark of the current state of the generic domain name sector prior to the widespread adoption and use of new gTLDs.

      Whereas, because the investment to implement two initiatives in response to the IAG's Interim Recommendations will almost certainly exceed $500,000, the Board is being asked to authorize the funding of this project.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.22), the ICANN Board thanks the IAG for its Interim Recommendations, and looks forward to receiving additional feedback from the IAG as it concludes its work.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.23), the President and CEO, or his designee, is hereby directed to carefully scope and design the study's phases to ensure that it supports the important goal of analyzing competition, consumer choice, and consumer trust, taking into account the experiences of some ccTLDs that have conducted or are proposing to conduct similar studies.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.24), the President and CEO, or his designee, is hereby directed to provide the resulting scope and design to the ICANN Board for review, prior to securing qualified firms to carry out the work.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.25), the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, is hereby directed to immediately:

      • Secure one or more qualified survey firm to conduct a global consumer survey to gather baseline measurements in the areas of consumer trust and consumer choice. The Board authorizes the contracting for and disbursement of payments of up to [AMOUNT REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES] to conduct this global survey to establish the baseline and to conduct subsequent follow-up surveys. The survey should ensure coverage in each of the five ICANN Geographic regions, and where relevant ensure a mix of developed and developing countries in each region.
      • Secure one or more qualified economic firm to conduct an economic study to take into account the impact of new gTLDs on competition in the DNS ecosystem, including consideration of relevant pricing data. The economic study should take into account the wholesale and retail prices (including aftermarket prices) for ccTLD and gTLD domain names now and at a later point; take into account TLD startup and launch phases as well as ongoing operations; and include an analysis of the findings in light of the competitive conditions of the domain name sector. The contract terms should require strict confidentiality and use of data only in aggregate form, as well as other safeguards to protect against misuse of the data collected. The Board authorizes the contracting for and disbursement of payments of up to [AMOUNT REDACTED FOR NEGOTIATION PURPOSES] to conduct this economic study to establish a baseline against which subsequent follow-on surveys will be measured, and to conduct the subsequent follow-on surveys.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.26), pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, specific items within this resolution shall remain confidential for negotiation purposes, unless and until such time as the President and CEO determines it may be appropriate to disclose such information.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.22 – 2014.03.27.26

      Why is the Board addressing the issue?

      This resolution is a continuation of the Board's resolutions (Resolutions 2013.07.18.05 – 2013.07.18.07 and 2013.09.28.13 – 2013.09.28.14) relating to evaluating the metrics proposed by the Community for use in a future review under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) of the impact of new gTLDs in the areas of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. The resolution adopted today responds to interim recommendations of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) convened at the request of the Board.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The Board's resolution calls for ICANN to immediately execute on two initiatives in response to the interim recommendations of the IAG to establish a benchmark of the current state of the generic domain name sector prior to the widespread adoption and use of new gTLDs.

      This work is to commence immediately, and involves securing qualified professionals to conduct: (i) a broad-based global consumer survey examining the current and future levels of trust in the domain name system; and (ii) an economic study of the current and future competitive landscape for generic domain names examining price levels at the wholesale and retail levels and aftermarket prices.

      What significant materials did the Board review?

      The Board reviewed the letter from the IAG dated 4 March 2014, the briefing materials submitted by staff, and the related prior advice letters from the ALAC [PDF, 491 KB] and the GNSO [PDF, 353 KB].

      What factors did the Board find to be significant?

      The Board recognizes the significant investment of resources called for in this resolution, but thinks that the data to be collected from these surveys is critical to supporting an accurate examination of the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice. By engaging in these activities now, ICANN is committing to ensuring that relevant data is available to the future Review Team, as well as the broader community, to support the future examination of the New gTLD Program that will occur under the AoC.

      The review called for under the AoC is to occur if and when new gTLDs have been in operation for one year and involves examining the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. Today, the Board is calling for implementation work to proceed that is intended to facilitate the work of the AoC review at the appropriate time.

      Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)?

      The funds to implement this resolution are not included in the FY14 Budget. However, the Board accepts that the data-gathering activities being authorized today necessitate immediate attention, in order to establish a benchmark of consumer sentiment and market conditions while the New gTLD Program is still in an early stage.

      Accordingly, the funding for these activities will come from the new gTLD application funds since this activity is closely linked to the operation of the new gTLD Program.

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

      This resolution does not affect the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

      Is public comment required prior to Board action?

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

    4. Dissolution of Globalization Advisory Groups

      Whereas, as part of its continued globalization efforts, on 17 February 2014 the Board approved the creation of several Globalization Advisory Groups composed of Board members to address the following areas: Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC"), policy structures, legal structure, root server system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance.

      Whereas, the Globalization Advisory Groups were established to provide guidance to the Board in support of ICANN's globalization work led by the President and CEO.

      Whereas, to support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking and governance, on 14 March 2014 the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship of key Internet technical coordination functions to the global multistakeholder community. As the first step, NTIA asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the technical coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS).

      Whereas, ICANN has now launched global multistakeholder community discussions to begin the work called for in the NTIA announcement, starting with numerous sessions held during ICANN's 49th Public Meeting in Singapore. These discussions will be used to develop the mechanism for stewardship transition with respect to the DNS technical coordination functions, and the transition of AOC accountability.

      Whereas, with the launch of the global multistakeholder community discussions, the need for and purpose of the Globalization Advisory Groups has been minimized.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.27), the Board hereby dissolves the Globalization Advisory Groups addressing AoC, policy structures, legal structure, the root server system, and the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and directs that the work contemplated to be undertaken by these Globalization Advisory Groups be considered as part of the recently initiated global multistakeholder community discussions that will help develop the mechanism for stewardship transition with respect to the DNS technical coordination or IANA functions, and help develop the mechanism for the transition of AOC accountability.

      Resolved (2014.03.27.28), the Board hereby dissolves the Globalization Advisory Group addressing Internet governance, as the Board anticipates that the work contemplated to be undertaken by this Globalization Advisory Group will be incorporated into the work being undertaken by the Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.03.27.27 – 2014.03.27.28

      This resolution follows on from the Board's 17 February 2014 resolution creating several Globalization Advisory Groups composed of Board members to address the Affirmation of Commitments, policy structures, legal structure, root server system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance. The creation of the Globalization Advisory Groups was a continuation of the Board's mandate to ICANN's President and CEO to explore how ICANN could coordinate with stakeholders from across the globe on matters relating to the future of Internet governance. The Globalization Advisory Groups were contemplated to provide guidance to the Board in support of these matters.

      The landscape of ICANN's globalization efforts since the Board created the Globalization Advisory Groups one month ago has changed. Specifically, on 14 March 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its oversight of key Internet technical coordination functions to the global multistakeholder community. As the first step, NTIA asked ICANN, and ICANN has begun, to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS) unique identifiers. The Board's action today recognizes the importance of recently convened discussions with the global multistakeholder community and thinks that these discussions will provide sufficient guidance to the Board on these matters, thereby rendering the Globalization Advisory Groups unnecessary.

      Because of the immediate focus needed on the processes that will be used to develop the mechanism for stewardship transition with respect to the technical coordination functions and the mechanism for the transition of AoC accountability, the Board is taking action to redirect the work initially contemplated to be undertaken by the Globalization Advisory Groups. In particular, the Board has determined that the work of the Globalization Advisory Groups addressing the AoC, policy structures, legal structure, the root server system, and IANA multistakeholder accountability is better suited as part of the discussions being held with the global multistakeholder community.

      Additionally, the Board has determined that the work of the Globalization Advisory Group addressing Internet governance would be duplicative of the work of the Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance, which includes members from various sectors of ICANN's multistakeholder community. Because this topic is better suited to be evaluated by the Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance, the Globalization Advisory Group addressing Internet governance is being dissolved.

      There is no anticipated direct financial impact on ICANN by dissolving the Globalization Advisory Groups. Further, there will be no impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this particular action.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is not required.

Published on 27 March 2014

1 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-051-en.pdf [PDF, 236 KB]

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."