Skip to main content
Resources

Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board

  1. Consent Agenda
    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
    2. Appointment of B-, C-, F-, and K- Root Server Operator Representatives to the RSSAC
    3. SSAC Advisory on DNS "Search List" Processing and DDos Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure
    4. Completion of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Organizational Review
  2. Main Agenda
    1. Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Recommendations Implementation Plan for 2016
    2. Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds
    3. ICANN 53 Meeting Location

 

  1. Consent Agenda:

    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes

      Resolved (2014.11.17.01), the Board approves the minutes of its 16 and 28 October 2014 meetings.

    2. Appointment of B-, C-, F-, and K- Root Server Operator Representatives to the RSSAC

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

      Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws call for Board appointment of RSSAC members based on recommendations from the RSSAC co-chairs.

      Whereas, the RSSAC co-chairs recommended for Board consideration appointments to the RSSAC to represent the B-root, C-root, F-root, and K-root server operators.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.02), the Board appoints the representatives for B-root, C-root, and K-root server operators, Bill Manning, Paul Vixie, Daniel Karrenberg, respectively, through 31 December 2017 and the representative for F-root server operator, Jim Martin, through 31 December 2015 to the Root Server System Advisory Committee.

      Rationale for Resolution 2014.11.17.02

      In May 2013, the Root Server Operators (RSOs) agreed to an initial membership of RSO representatives for RSSAC, and each RSO nominated an individual. The Board approved the initial membership of RSSAC in July 2013 with staggered terms.

      The representatives for B-root, C-root and K-root server operators were appointed to an initial one-year term, which expires on 31 December 2014. Their re-appointment is for a full, three-year term. The representative for F-root server operator is being appointed to complete the remaining initial term of the pervious representative.

      The appointment of the representatives will allow the RSSAC to be properly comprised to serve its function within ICANN's policy development work as an advisory committee. The appointment of these RSSAC members is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on ICANN, though there are 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 ICANN's commitment to strengthening the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

    3. SSAC Advisory on DNS "Search List" Processing and DDos Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure

      Whereas, in February 2014, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC064 [PDF, 931 KB]: SSAC Advisory on DNS "Search List" Processing and SAC065 [PDF, 423 KB]: SSAC Advisory on DDoS Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure.

      Whereas, in SAC 064, the advice highlights some of the DNS "search list" processing behavior presents security and privacy issues to end systems, lead to performance problems for the Internet, and might cause collision with names provisioned under the newly delegated top-level domains.

      Whereas, in SAC 065, the advice recommends ICANN and operators of Internet infrastructure and manufacturers to take action to address the unresolved critical design and deployment issues that have enabled increasingly large and severe Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks using the DNS.

      Whereas, while in some instances SAC 064 and SAC 065 call for actions not under ICANN's control and actors not necessarily within ICANN's usual community, they are meant to address the overall responsibilities of the multi-stakeholder community and encourage ICANN to take action where it is relevant to do so.

      Whereas, ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet's system of unique identifiers is part of ICANN's mission; preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet part of ICANN's core value; and ensuring the introduction of new gTLDs in a secure and stable manner is a strategic priority for ICANN.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.03), the Board acknowledges the receipt of SAC064: SSAC Advisory on Search List Processing, and SAC065: SSAC Advisory on DDoS Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.04), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to evaluate the advice provided in SAC064 and SAC 065.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.05), in the instances where it is recommended that the advice be accepted, the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to evaluate the feasibility and cost of implementing the advice, and provide an implementation plan with timelines and high-level milestones for review by the Board, no later than 120 days from the adoption of this resolution.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.11.17.03 – 2014.11.17.05

      On 13 February 2014, the SSAC published an advisory concerning the security and stability implications of DNS "search list" processing – SAC 064. The SSAC advice examines how current operating systems and applications process search lists. It outlines issues related to current search list behavior, and proposes both a strawman to improve search list processing in the long term and mitigation options for ICANN and the Internet community to consider in the short term. The purpose of these proposals is to help introduce new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) in a secure and stable manner with minimum disruptions to currently deployed systems.

      On 24 February 2014, the SSAC published an advisory concerning large-scale abuse that leverages DNS infrastructure - SAC 065. The SSAC advice examines how current operating systems and applications process search lists. The advice explores several unresolved critical design and deployment issues that have enabled increasingly large and severe Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks using the DNS. While DDoS attacks can exploit multiple characteristics of network infrastructure and operations, the prevalence and criticality of the DNS means that securing it is both challenging and urgent. These unresolved DNS issues and related DDoS attacks pose a real and present danger to the security and stability of the Internet.

      The Board's consideration of recommendations from Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees in general, and for SAC064 and SAC 065 in specific, needs to be informed by an analysis of both the substance of the advice as well as the feasibility and cost of implementing such advice that is deemed acceptable.

      There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution, which is the first step in initiating the analysis of implementation of the SSAC advice. The fiscal impacts will be analyzed as a result of this Board action for future consideration. The adoption of this resolution is not an Organizational Administrative Action requiring public comment.

    4. Completion of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Organizational Review

      Whereas, ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4 call for a "periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review";

      Whereas, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) "shall provide its own review mechanisms" in reference to periodic review of the ASO, based on the terms of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 October 2004;

      Whereas, the NRO completed the review of the ASO and the implementation work resulting from the recommendations offered by ITEMS International, the independent examiner engaged to conduct the ASO review.

      RESOLVED (2014.11.17.06) that the Board accepts the final report from the Number Resource Organization (NRO) issued in the form of a letter to the Chair of the Structural Improvements Committee in November 2013 regarding the completion of implementation work resulting from the ASO Review. The Board thanks the NRO for its work in conducting the review and acknowledges the completion of the implementation work resulting from the recommendations received by the NRO during the review.

      RESOLVED (2014.11.17.07) that the Board directs staff to provide support requested by the Chair of the NRO Executive Council, consisting of logistical staff support associated with ICANN meetings, allocation of time during ICANN meetings for ASO and NRO reports to the ICANN community, translation services and improved visibility on the ICANN web site.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.11.17.06 – 2014.11.17.07

      This action is a component of ICANN's Organizational Review process, which is a key part of ICANN's commitment to accountability and transparency and continuous improvement. ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4 calls for a "periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review." Based on the terms of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 October 2004, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) "shall provide its own review mechanisms" in reference to periodic review of the ASO. In June 2011, ITEMS International was hired as independent review consultants to conduct the ASO Review. ITEMS International issued their final report [PDF, 3.75 MB] in December 2011, which was posted for public comment in March 2012. The report contained 26 recommendations, covering the following areas:

      • Clarifications and updates to the ASO MoU. These recommendations suggested that the NRO: clarify the purpose, mandate and objectives of the ASO; distinguish between the ASO functions to be undertaken by the Address Council and those to be undertaken by the NRO Executive Council.

      • Global Policy Development Process (GPDP). These recommendations suggested the development of various procedures related to initiation of GPDP and objections to policies by the ICANN Board.

      • Presence of the ASO during ICANN meetings. A set of recommendations advocated for changes in the nature of meetings, joint sessions with other structures, and improved agendas and presentations.

      • Enhancements to the ASO web site. Several recommendations proposed clarification of the ASO structure, addition of FAQs and history of the ASO, translations into other languages and improvements in quality control.

      • Enhancement of ASO procedures – Recommendations addressed the need for several new procedures: for appointment of NomCom members and Affirmation of Commitment Review members; procedure for advising the ICANN Board on the recognition of new RIRs.

      • NRO Executive Council related recommendations. Recommendations suggesting that the NRO Executive Council empowers the Policy Proposal Facilitating Teams (PPFT) and reacts to the ATRT report.

      Two recommendations pertained to the ICANN Board. The Board is not required to take action on these recommendations based on the NRO's assessment of the recommendations and the processes already in place.

      • The ICANN Board should be urged to request advice from the ASO on policy issues regarding IP number resources other than global addressing policies. The Board has been following this recommended practice.

      • The ICANN Board should check if its Procedures for the Ratification of Global Addressing Policies are in conformity with the ATRT Report's recommendations in this regard. The procedures are contained inside the ASO MOU agreed to by the NRO and ICANN.

      Complete listing of recommendations and NRO responses is available on the NRO web site.

      As part of the public comment process, the NRO submitted its conclusions on the report to the Public Comment forum, taking into account the comments received (see Report of Public Comments). One additional comment was submitted by an organization that provides post-distribution registrar services. The commenter expressed a concern about the inherent structural conflict of interest built into the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding and recommended that an independent entity be appointed by the ICANN Board of Directors to undertake a review of the conflict of interest that is unique to this Supporting Organization.

      During the meeting on 26 and 27 Apr 2012, the ASO Address Council passed a motion to update the work plan to consider a review of the Global Policy Development Process (GPDP) and develop process in accordance with recommendations from the ASO Review Report. The NRO provided its response to the ASO Review Report on 30 April 2012. Subsequently, the NRO submitted a letter to the Chair of the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) as a final report of the implementation work.

      In the letter to the Chair of the SIC in November 2013 regarding the completion of implementation work resulting from the ASO Review, the Chair of the NRO Executive Council identified several areas requiring modest ICANN support in order to move the implementation of recommendations into standard operating processes. This support involves logistical staff support associated with ICANN meetings, allocation of time during ICANN meetings for ASO and NRO reports to the ICANN community, translation services and improved visibility on the ICANN web site. This is expected to have a minor resource implication on ICANN, but is expected to be performed within the allocated budget.

      No security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS are anticipated as the result of this action.

  2. Main Agenda:

    1. Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Recommendations Implementation Plan for 2016

      Whereas, ICANN intends to hold meetings in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.

      Whereas, the Meeting Strategy Working Group produced a Final Report of recommendations to improve the overall structure and format of ICANN Meetings and on 26 June 2014 received the Board's gratitude for conducting this review.

      Whereas, in furtherance of the Board's 26 June 2014, ICANN reviewed the MSWG Final Report and developed an implementation plan based on the recommendations within that Final Report, identifying implementation in the calendar year 2016. In addition, ICANN identifies a five (5) year schedule and regional rotation for ICANN Meetings through 2020.

      Whereas, the five year schedule reflects the MSWG recommendations for timing and duration of ICANN Public Meetings.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.08), the Board accepts all MSWG recommendations and directs the President and CEO, through his designee(s), to proceed with implementation. For recommendations on meeting support and engagement activities, focusing on technical support for remote participants and easing of future visa attainment for attendees, the Board directs the President and CEO to provide required support to obtain relevant metrics on recurring attendees.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.09), the Board accepts the dates of Meetings to be held in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 as set forth in Annex 1 [PDF, 82 KB] to this Resolution.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.11.17.08 – 2014.11.17.09

      The successful operation of ICANN's Public Meetings in all of the geographic regions is an important part of ICANN's accountability and transparency responsibilities.

      The growing demand for more sessions and meetings spread over more days has resulted in over-scheduled agendas and reduced opportunities for cross-community interaction.

      The MSWG developed a constructive report that made proposals for changes to ICANN Public Meetings in the following areas: meeting timing, duration and format; rotation of the meeting location; meeting support and engagement activities; and meeting planning.

      The MSWG recommendations were submitted for public comment in February 2014. ICANN performed a thorough analysis of the comments submitted by the community in response to the MSWG recommendations, and prepared a comment report. The analysis indicates that the community supports the recommendations made by the MSWG.

      The proposed dates for ICANN Meetings 2016-2020, which provide for equitable distribution of meetings over the five (5) geographic regions, were selected based on careful avoidance of important holidays, celebrations, and observances around the globe. Similarly, every effort was made to identify and prevent scheduling conflicts with other community events. The recommended dates were then developed in accordance with the timing and duration for ICANN Public Meetings recommended by the MSWG.

      There will be a financial impact on ICANN in hosting these meetings and providing travel support as necessary, as well as on the community in incurring costs to travel to the ICANN meetings. Given that ICANN is committed to having regular meetings, the financial and resource impact of today's decision is not anticipated to vary significantly from the regular operation of ICANN meetings.

      There is no impact on the security or the stability of the DNS due to the implementation of these recommendations.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment has been considered.

    2. Planning for Future gTLD Application Rounds

      Whereas, the New gTLD Program was developed and implemented based on consensus policy recommendations from the GNSO;

      Whereas, ICANN undertook thorough consultation with the global stakeholder community in the development of the application and evaluation processes in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook ("Applicant Guidebook");

      Whereas, the GNSO policy recommendations provide that applications for new gTLDs should continue to be accepted in rounds;

      Whereas, the Board has reaffirmed its commitment to opening a subsequent application round in a timely manner;

      Whereas, the Board wishes to set the continuing direction for the New gTLD Program;

      Whereas, ICANN is committed to executing a number of reviews as part of moving forward with subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program;

      Whereas, the Board wishes to ensure that the GNSO's deliberations on policy applicable to future rounds includes consideration of potential policy issues that were not addressed by the GNSO's 2007 policy recommendations, including issues that the NGPC was called on to address as implementation issues;

      Resolved (2014.11.17.10), the Board directs the staff to continue working with the community to refine the work plan for executing all required reviews of the New gTLD Program and to provide regular updates to the community on the status and timeframes of review activities.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.11), the Board notes the effort in progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds, and looks forward to the results of this work, to ensure that key policy areas are addressed for future rounds.

      Resolved (2014.11.17.12), the Board notes that the GNSO has invited the NGPC to provide input to the GNSO Council to identify areas that may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures. The Board appreciates the request and has identified, in addition to the GNSO analysis of the Applicant Guidebook and the current application round, a set of topics (included as Annex A [PDF, 71 KB]) that may be appropriate for discussion by the GNSO.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2014.11.17.10 – 2014.11.17.12

      Why is the Board addressing this issue now?

      On 22 September 2014, ICANN published a New gTLD Program Reviews and Assessments draft Work Plan [PDF, 398 KB] to describe the set of community reviews and activities underway and planned to support consideration of an additional application process for the next round of generic top-level domain (gTLD) names under the New gTLD Program. The ICANN Board is taking action to direct staff to continue to work with the community to refine the work plan for executing all required reviews of the New gTLD Program.

      ICANN is at a midpoint in processing the applications received in the 2012 application process, with initial and extended evaluation processes now completed by ICANN and pre-delegation, contracting, and delegation procedures being completed by applicants on a regular basis. Those applications still active in the process are proceeding through contention resolution or other applicable processes.

      The Board recognizes the necessity of capturing the experience gained by operating this application round, as well as considering the activities that will lead toward the future of the New gTLD Program. This is an appropriate time to anticipate what will need to occur and support the community's efforts in planning and developing additional application rounds.

      As part of its action today, the Board acknowledges the effort and progress within the GNSO to identify areas where the GNSO believes that policy advice can be clarified or where it wishes to provide additional policy advice applicable to future application rounds. The Board looks forward to the results of this work to ensure that key policy areas are addressed for future rounds. As requested by the GNSO, the Board is providing input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that the Board believes may be appropriate for discussion in an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

      What are the proposals being considered?

      ICANN has committed to certain reviews as pre-requisites to a subsequent application round in the New gTLD Program, and a number of activities are under way in the community relevant to planning for a subsequent round. The resolution anticipates continuing work throughout the community and provides one piece of input for consideration by the GNSO in its process.

      What stakeholders or others were consulted?

      ICANN published the draft Work Plan for reviews and assessments of the New gTLD Program on 22 September 2014, to begin the process of soliciting input from the community on the required reviews of the New gTLD Program. ICANN expects to continue to work with stakeholders to refine the Work Plan, including incorporating feedback received during the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles.

      What significant materials did the Board review?

      The Board reviewed the draft Work Plan, materials from the Board-GAC consultations on the GAC Indicative Scorecard on outstanding issues in the New gTLD Program, the Affirmation of Commitments, previous NGPC resolutions, previous GAC communiqués, the Applicant Guidebook, the Name Collision Framework, and other resources.

      What factors did the Board find to be significant?

      The Board reviewed the time period for which the Program has been in operation, and noted that there were particular areas where significant time and effort were invested in resolving issues. The Board intends its action to account for those areas as planning for the subsequent round moves forward.

      Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

      The Board expects that continuing thorough planning for the required reviews, including discussion of the draft Work Plan with the community, and initiating the work toward subsequent application rounds, will have a positive impact.

      Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public?

      Some of the Program reviews will require engaging specialized expertise, and funds have been allocated to these activities in the FY15 budget.

      Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

      This is one of the proposed areas of study in the Work Plan. There is no immediate impact to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS as a result of taking this resolution.

    3. ICANN 53 Meeting Location

      No resolution taken.

Published on 19 November 2014

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."