Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
- New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase (ODP): Scoping Document, Board Resolution, Funding and Next steps
- GAC Advice: ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué (June 2021)
- Los Angeles Office Lease Period
- Executive Session:
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase (ODP): Scoping Document, Board Resolution, Funding and Next steps
Whereas, on 18 February 2021 the GNSO Council approved the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance (collectively, referred to as "Outputs") that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations as documented in its New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
Whereas, the Board has begun its deliberations to consider whether the Outputs in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report are in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
Whereas, the Board wishes to utilize the Operational Design Phase (ODP) process to assess all of the Final Report Outputs and to gather more information as part of its deliberations.
Whereas, the ODP for the Final Report Outputs will be an initiation and an integral part of the preparation work for a possible next application round for new gTLDs based on the existing new gTLD policy of 2008, as modified by the GNSO Subsequent Procedures recommendations, if and when those recommendations are approved, and the costs incurred during the ODP phase are considered part of the necessary development costs for that possible next round.
Whereas, the ICANN President and CEO and the Board Caucus on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process have recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to initiate and conduct an ODP on all of the Final Report Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process.
Whereas, the Board recognizes that the ODP is a significant undertaking and will require a considerable amount of ICANN org resources to execute, thereby creating the need for a range of US$7-$9M in spending to fund the necessary resources.
Whereas, the ICANN President and CEO and the Board Finance Committee have recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to spend up to US$9M to fund the resources needed for ICANN org to initiate and conduct the ODP and any additional related work that may be required to support the ICANN Board's consideration of the New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report.
Resolved (2021.09.12.01), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to conduct the Operational Design Phase (ODP) by addressing the questions outlined in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase Scoping Document. The Board further directs the President and CEO, or his designees(s), to take the steps needed to organize the resources required to begin work on the ODP, and to advise the Board when the work of the ODP is initiated within the organization. The Board requests regular updates on the progress of the work and delivery of the Operational Design Assessment (ODA), the expected output of the ODP, within ten months from the date of initiation, provided that there are no unforeseen matters that could affect the timeline, of which any such matters are to be communicated to the Board immediately upon identification.
Resolved (2021.09.12.02), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to contract for, make disbursements for, or spend, on any one or more pieces of work, a total of up to US$9M to fund the internal project needed for initiation of the ODP, the execution of the ODP including community engagement, formation and delivery of an ODA to the Board, and any additional related work that may be required to support the ICANN Board's consideration of the New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report until such a time when the ICANN Board has made its determination regarding said report. This work is considered the initiation and an integral part of the preparation for the next round, and its costs part of the development costs for the next round. The source of the funding for the ODP is intended to be the New gTLD Program funds, composed of the remaining funds of the 2012 round.
Rationale for Resolutions 2021.09.12.01 – 2021.09.12.02
Why is the Board addressing the issue?
The Board is taking action today to take a key step as part of the Board's requirement to consider the consensus policy recommendations and other outputs approved by the GNSO Council to enable moving forward with subsequent rounds of new gTLDs. Due to the required resource investment and complexity of the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance (collectively, referred to as "Outputs") that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations as documented in the New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report ("Final Report"), initiating an ODP for the Final Report Outputs is essential to inform the Board's deliberations, including whether the recommendations are in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, as noted above. The ODP will assess the potential risks, anticipated costs, resource requirements, timelines, and other matters related to implementation of the Final Report, as detailed in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase Scoping Document. The ODP will provide additional transparency into the information provided to and considered by the ICANN Board in support of its obligation to act on the Final Report in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.
What is the proposal being considered?
The Board is taking action to initiate the ODP and directs ICANN org to prepare an assessment of the operational requirements and impact of the Final Report Outputs according to the scope specified by the Board for the purpose of facilitating the Board's determination of the recommendations.
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
The Board followed closely relevant stakeholder discussions related to a possible launch of an ODP for the Subsequent Procedures Final Report Outputs.1 During ICANN71, The Board also had constructive exchanges on this topic in its meetings with the GAC. The Board also notes that during ICANN71 ICANN org provided the GAC with an update on the status of a potential ODP for the Subsequent Procedures Final Report Outputs and on 24 June 2021, the ICANN Board had a similar discussion with the GNSO Council.
The Board will consider community input on the substance of the Final Report once the Operational Design Phase has concluded and the Board is considering the approval of the Final Report.
What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
Some groups within the ICANN community have raised concerns regarding a potential Board request for an ODP for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report Outputs. The three main concerns raised are:
- The time it will take to conduct an ODP may lead to delays in the launch of subsequent rounds of new gTLDs.
- The need to address dependencies before the application window for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs opens.
- Concern that the ODP assessment may inappropriately impact the intention or substance of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report Outputs
The Board acknowledges the community's concerns and considered them prior to taking its decision to move forward with requesting an ODP. In evaluating the concerns, the ICANN Board considered that the work done during the ODP is expected to streamline the implementation phase due to the investment in advance preparations, and thus not lead to delays in the launch of subsequent application rounds. Additionally, the ICANN Board considered that the ODP is expected to address the concerns as it provides the opportunity to define, clarify, and resolve dependencies and the ODP has built in protections, such as the ICANN Board setting the limited scope of the ODP and the inclusion of a GNSO liaison as part of the ODP process to identify any policy questions that may arise during the course of the ODP.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the Final Report, including minority statements, to decide whether the complexity of the outputs merits the launch of an Operational Design Phase to better inform the Board's determination whether the recommendations are in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN, as noted above. The Board has also reviewed the public comments received in the comment period from 22 April 2021 to 1 June 2021. The Board will ultimately consider these inputs, as well as the Operational Design Assessment derived during the Operational Design Phase, as well as other relevant materials, in its determination on the Outputs in the Final Report.
What factors did the Board find to be significant?
To help facilitate the Board's determination whether the Outputs contained in the Final Report are in the best interest of the ICANN Community or ICANN, as noted above, the Board considered the following factors to be significant:
- The volume and complexity of the Final Report Outputs:
- The Final Report contains over three hundred Outputs.
- Not all of the Final Report Outputs were approved by the GNSO Council.
- Significant demand on resourcing to implement the Final Report Outputs.
- The value of assessing the Final Report Outputs as a whole rather than on an individual basis:
- A significant number of the Outputs are interrelated or have dependencies.
- Some rules and procedures from the 2012 round have been reaffirmed, others have been amended, and others are new.
- A need to understand what resourcing is required to launch subsequent rounds of new gTLDs based on the Outputs contained in the Final Report:
- An overview of expected costs, including staffing, contracting, systems, and other long-term costs involved in implementing and operating future rounds is important for organizational planning.
- This includes an overview of one-off costs versus those that will be ongoing.
Are there positive or negative community impacts?
The overall impact of the ODP on the community is positive. The ODP will provide additional transparency into the Board's consideration of the SubPro PDP Working Group's Outputs: the ODP is a transparent process and the community will be kept updated throughout. The ODP team will provide regular updates via webinars, blogs, dedicated webpage presence, community sessions, and progress updates, thereby further enhancing transparency.
ICANN org will also seek appropriate community feedback on the facts, figures, and assumptions that will be included in its ODP assessment, providing the community with an opportunity to submit feedback on the materials the Board will review before its decision. While the conduct of the ODP may extend the time the Board will take to resolve on the Outputs, the ODA, which includes a high-level, end-to-end operational design model of the Outputs, will become an invaluable tool to help streamline the implementation timeline.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
Initiating and conducting an ODP for the Subsequent Procedures Final Report Outputs is a significant undertaking and will require a considerable amount of ICANN org resources. The President and CEO and the Board Finance Committee (BFC) recommended that the ICANN Board authorize a range of US$7-$9M in spending to fund the needed resources2.
The resolution includes approval to spend up to US$9M to fund the additional resources required to initiate and conduct the ODP. The ICANN Board approved the upper limit of the estimated US$7M-$9M to provide the ICANN org with the maximum flexibility to ensure prudent planning and to minimize time during the ODP in the event that org would need to come back to the Board to request additional funding.
The ODP for the Subsequent Procedures Final Report will be an integral part of the preparation work for the next round of subsequent procedures for new gTLDs and will be incurred regardless. As such, the costs incurred during the ODP phase are considered part of the development costs for the next round and will be incurred regardless.
The funding to pay for such development costs, including those for an ODP for the Subsequent Procedures Final Report, will come from the new gTLD application round remaining application fees. These funds are intended to be used on the program, are not specifically earmarked for a specific round, and are therefore being recommended to fund the ODP relating to this new round.
ICANN org is working under the general assumption that there will be subsequent rounds of new gTLDs. The estimated resource requirements for the ODP have been calculated to ensure that, under the assumption there will be future rounds, following a Board decision regarding the New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report, ICANN org will be well positioned to not only support the ODP itself, but to use the additional resources to support implementation planning, implementation, and ongoing operations of the approved policy recommendations.
A key component of the anticipated resource expenditures will be additional staffing for ICANN org to increase its capacity to meet the additional demand on resources. ICANN org will be seeking a combination of temporary staff and FTEs to support the ODP, which will vary and be dictated by the type and duration of the work being performed. Each FTE or temporary resource translates to approximately 1,800 working hours per year. ICANN org will leverage the opportunity, where needed and appropriate, to begin hiring and training full-time staff to support the ODP and who will be trained and ready to support implementation planning, implementation, and ongoing operations following the Board's decision regarding the Subsequent Procedures Final Report. In cases where the additional staff resource requirements are shorter term or less permanent, ICANN org will leverage the most appropriate staffing solution.
ICANN org will also utilize the approved funds to seek outside support and expertise where relevant, e.g., regarding legal matters, operational support, and technical matters. In light of the ICANN Board's 15 July 2021 resolution, ICANN org included in its estimated resource requirements a line item to investigate whether it is feasible for ICANN org to facilitate small in-person or hybrid community meeting(s), should travel and meeting conditions allow, to begin generating awareness in underserved regions regarding the potential opportunity of subsequent rounds, to initiate discussions regarding how ICANN org will provide support for linguistic needs and Internationalized Domain Names, and to provide information regarding ICANN's mission and the goals of the new gTLD initiative.
As this ODP request will be funded from the New gTLD Program fund, a specific source of funds that is separate from ICANN org's day-to-day funding source, the risk that conducting this will have a negative impact on ICANN org's operations is mitigated.
ICANN org's Strategic and Operating plans include goals and initiatives, respectively, which are directly tied to the work of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and the preparation for new gTLD application rounds. The request for an ODP assessment of the Final Report Outputs from the Subsequent Procedures PDP is in alignment with ICANN org's overall planning and communications regarding both the Strategic and Operating plans.
Throughout the ODP, ICANN org will provide the community with periodic updates, opportunities to provide feedback, and an opportunity to review the work, thereby impacting community member resources as well.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
The ODP will consider the impact that the Outputs may have on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, including from both an operational perspective and a risk perspective.
Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?
As part of the ODP, the Board will explore public interest considerations, if any, that could result from implementation of the Final Report Outputs. The mechanism that will be used for ascertaining the public interest is the Global Public Interest Framework that was developed in collaboration with the ICANN community and Board, and that the Board agreed to pilot in FY21. The Framework will only be used as an evaluative tool for the Outputs.
Under ICANN's Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, ICANN is tasked with the following:
- Operating with efficiency and excellence, in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner.
- Promoting and sustaining a competitive environment in the DNS market, where feasible, and introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names, where practicable and beneficial to the public interest.
- Coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System and coordinating the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains.
Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment, but it should be noted that the Final Report Outputs were the subject of public comment, and the ODP Process was developed in collaboration with the ICANN community. Additionally, the ODP itself is an open and transparent process and it is foreseen that stakeholders will be able to provide comments and feedback throughout the design phase.
GAC Advice: ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué (June 2021)
Whereas, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) met during the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum and issued advice to the ICANN Board in a Communiqué on 21 June 2021 (ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué).
Whereas, the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué was the subject of an exchange between the Board and the GAC on 29 July 2021.
Whereas, in a 27 July 2021 letter, the GNSO Council provided its feedback to the Board concerning advice in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué relevant to International Governmental Organizations (IGO) Protections; Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) Review Recommendations; Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Phase 1 Policy Implementation, and Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation.
Whereas, the Board developed a scorecard to respond to the GAC's advice in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué, taking into account the dialogue between the Board and the GAC and the information provided by the GNSO Council.
Resolved (2021.09.12.03), the Board adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué: Actions and Updates (12 September 2021)" in response to items of GAC advice in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué.
Rationale for Resolution 2021.09.12.03
Article 12, Section 12.2(a)(ix) of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." In its ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué (21 June 2021), the GAC issued advice to the Board on IGO protections. The GAC also provided follow-up to previous advice regarding CCT Review Recommendations, EPDP Phase 1 Policy Implementation, and Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full consensus of the GAC (as defined in the Bylaws) may only be rejected by a vote of no less than 60% of the Board, and the GAC and the Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
The Board is taking action today on the GAC Consensus Advice to the ICANN Board in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué, including the items related to IGO Protections.
The Board's actions are described in the scorecard dated 12 September 2021.
In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:
- ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué (21 June 2021): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-21jun21-en.pdf
- The GNSO Council's review of the advice in the ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué as presented in the 27 July 2021 letter to the Board: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/fouquart-to-icann-board-27jul21-en.pdf
The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the scorecard will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the advice from the GAC concerning gTLDs and other matters. There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.
Los Angeles Office Lease Period
Whereas, the Board resolution passed on 22 July 2021 approving the Los Angeles Office Lease Renewal, contained a minor discrepancy in that it referred to a 10-year lease term, but the actual lease term is 129 months (10 years and nine months).
Whereas, ICANN organization has recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all necessary actions to correct the term of lease from 10 years to 129 months as referenced in the Los Angeles Office Lease Renewal resolution and rationale.
Resolved (2021.09.12.04) the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all necessary actions to change references in the Los Angeles Office Lease Renewal resolution and rationale about the term of lease from 10 years to 129 months (10 years and nine months).
Resolved (2021.09.12.05), the remainder of the Los Angeles Office Lease Renewal resolution and rationale not referencing the term of the lease shall remain in full force and effect, including the Board's approval to enter into the new lease as set forth in the Los Angeles Office Lease Renewal Board resolution.
Ombudsman FY21 At-Risk Compensation
Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment to the Ombudsman of his FY21 at-risk compensation.
Resolved (2021.09.12.06), the Board hereby approves a payment to the Ombudsman of his FY21 at-risk compensation component.
Resolved (2021.09.12.07), portions of this action by the Board shall remain confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article 3, section 3.5b of the ICANN Bylaws.
Rationale for Resolutions 2021.09.12.06 – 2021.09.12.07
Annually the Ombudsman has an opportunity to earn a portion of his compensation based on specific performance goals set by the Board, through the Compensation Committee. This not only provides incentive for the Ombudsman to perform above and beyond his regular duties, but also leads to regular touch points between the Ombudsman and Board members during the year to help ensure that the Ombudsman is achieving his goals and serving the needs of the ICANN community.
Evaluation of the Ombudsman's objectives results from both the Ombudsman self-assessment as well as review by the Compensation Committee, leading to a recommendation to the Board with which the Board agrees.
Evaluating the Ombudsman's annual performance objectives is in furtherance of the goals and mission of ICANN and helps increase the Ombudsman's service to the ICANN community, which is in the public interest.
While there is a fiscal impact from the results of the scoring, that impact was already accounted for in the FY21 budget. This action will have no impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Update on Independent Review Process re: Application for .GCC
Whereas, GCCIX, W.L.L. (the applicant for .GCC) initiated an Independent Review Process (IRP) challenging the ICANN Board's acceptance of Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) consensus advice that the .GCC application should not proceed.
Whereas, in light of certain prior IRP Panel Declarations, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) discussed whether, in advance of proceeding with the current .GCC IRP, it would be helpful to seek further information from the GAC regarding the rationale for the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application.
Whereas the BAMC recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to seek a stay of the .GCC IRP and open an informal dialogue with the GAC regarding the rationale for the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application.
Resolved (2021.09.12.08), the Board authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to seek a stay of the .GCC IRP and open an informal dialogue with the GAC regarding the rationale for the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application.
Resolved (2021.09.12.09), this resolution shall remain confidential pursuant to Article 3, sections 3.5(b) and (d) of the ICANN Bylaws until it is otherwise determined that it can be published.
Rationale for Resolutions 2021.09.12.08 - 2021.09.12.09
After careful review of the underlying facts, prior applicable IRP Panel Declarations, and the BAMC's recommendation, the Board has concluded that, before proceeding further with the .GCC IRP, it could be beneficial to ask the GAC for any new or additional information that the GAC might choose to offer regarding its advice that the .GCC application should not proceed. The Board, therefore, authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to seek a stay of the .GCC IRP and open an informal dialogue with the GAC regarding the rationale for the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application.
In 2012, GCCIX submitted an application to operate a .GCC gTLD, stating in part:
GCC refers generally, but not exclusively, to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.4
Given this lack of connection with, and lack of support from, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is commonly referred to as the "GCC," the GCC, along with the governments of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and UAE, issued a GAC Early Warning in November 2012 expressing "serious concerns" regarding GCCIX's .GCC application because the applied-for gTLD "matches a name of an Intergovernmental Organization" (IGO), namely, the GCC, and "[lacks] . . . community involvement and support," noting that the .GCC application "clearly shows that the applicant is targeting the GCC community which basically covers the 6 member states of the GCC."
In March 2013, the GCC filed a Legal Rights Objection (LRO) with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO) against GCCIX's application, claiming that the .GCC application takes advantage of the distinctive character and reputation of the "GCC" acronym and creates a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the GCC's IGO acronym.
In April 2013, the GAC issued the Beijing Communiqué, which provided GAC consensus advice that the application for .GCC should not proceed. The New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) accepted the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application in June 2013 and removed the application from further processing.5 The NGPC's rationale was based upon the Guidebook provision stating that GAC consensus advice against an application creates "a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved." (Guidebook at § 3.1(I).) GCCIX filed Reconsideration Request 13-17 challenging the NGPC's acceptance of the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application, which was denied by the Board Governance Committee (BGC).
After engaging in the Cooperative Engagement Process for several years, GCCIX filed an IRP Request in June 2021. Among other claims, GCCIX alleges that the NGPC violated ICANN's Articles of Incorporation (Articles) and Bylaws by accepting the GAC advice on .GCC "despite [a] lack of any rationale provided by GAC for its advice" and by failing "to request [a] rationale from the GAC, investigate the matter or otherwise consider the public interest" before accepting the GAC advice. (IRP Request at 18.) GCCIX also alleges that the NGPC acted contrary to the Articles and Bylaws by "refus[ing] to provide any rationale for the NGPC decision to accept GAC advice." (IRP Request at 18.) In addition, GCCIX claims that the BGC violated ICANN's Articles and Bylaws by denying GCCIX's "Request for Reconsideration as to the above actions and inactions, without providing any additional analysis or rationale, or conducting any further investigation."6 (IRP Request at 18.) Finally, GCCIX alleges that the IRP Declarations in the .AFRICA and .AMAZON IRPs are precedential, binding on ICANN, and are dispositive on the claims asserted by GCCIX regarding the actions of the NGPC and BGC in accepting the GAC consensus advice noted above. (IRP Request at 16-17, 19, 27-28, 29.)
ICANN has generally followed a practice of not taking any actions on applications that are the subject of a pending Accountability Mechanism out of deference to ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms. However, [REDACTED – PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL], the Board has determined that, under these circumstances, this is an opportunity to consider alternatives to that general practice. Accordingly, before proceeding further with the .GCC IRP, the BAMC carefully considered options regarding next steps and concluded that it could be beneficial to ask the GAC for any new or additional information that the GAC might choose to offer regarding its advice that the .GCC application should not proceed. The BAMC therefore has recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to seek a stay of the .GCC IRP and open an informal dialogue with the GAC regarding the rationale for the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application.
The Board agrees with this approach and notes that such discussions with the GAC (if the GAC is open to such discussions) could provide valuable information that may be beneficial to reaching a determination as to the next steps regarding the .GCC IRP and the .GCC application.
This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN is accountable to the community for operating within the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and other established procedures. This accountability includes having a process in place by which a person or entity materially affected by an action of the ICANN Board or staff may request reconsideration of that action or inaction by the Board. This action should have no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.
This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
President And CEO Goals for FY22
Whereas, the Compensation Committee has worked with the President and CEO to develop a set of performance goals for FY22.
Resolved (2021.09.12.10), the Board hereby approves performance goals for the President and CEO for FY22.
Rationale for Resolution 2021.09.12.10
When the President and CEO was hired, he was offered a base salary, plus an at-risk component of his compensation package. This same structure exists today. Consistent with all personnel with the ICANN organization, the President and CEO is to be evaluated against specific performance goals, which the President and CEO sets in coordination with the Compensation Committee and the Board.
The Compensation Committee discussed a set of performance goals for the President and CEO for FY22, some of which were proposed by the President and CEO and some were proposed by the Compensation Committee. The Board has evaluated these goals and agrees that they are appropriate and consistent with ICANN's Strategic and Operating plans.
Taking this decision is in furtherance of ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest in that the President and CEO's performance goals are fully consistent with ICANN's Strategic and Operating plans.
The decision to adopt FY22 performance goals for the President and CEO will not have a direct fiscal impact on ICANN until it is determined to pay him his at-risk payment after the first half of FY22, and any such impact is contemplated in the FY22 budget. This decision will not have an impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Published on 14 September 2021
1 https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/efyH4vdrQbmm2QHGK#/?limit=10&sortByFields=isPinned&sortByFields=lastActivityAt&sortByOrders=-1&sortByOrders=-1&uid=sRMo5hmLvvdHjHkao; https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/e4rKih5BHGtkz3X9Z#/?limit=10&sortByFields=isPinned&sortByFields=lastActivityAt&sortByOrders=-1&sortByOrders=-1&uid=sRMo5hmLvvdHjHkao; https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/JHh7cZinAZMYutQ33#/?limit=10&sortByFields=isPinned&sortByFields=lastActivityAt&sortByOrders=-1&sortByOrders=-1&uid=sRMo5hmLvvdHjHkao.
2 Appendix A to this Board paper includes additional detail about the estimated range of spending to fund the ODP.
3 Further background information is provided in the accompanying Reference Materials.
4 The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf is also known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Formed in May 1981 as a regional organization, it consists of six Gulf countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. Its main objectives are to enhance coordination, integration and inter-connection between its members in different spheres. This application is not connected with or sponsored by the Council. .GCC does not purport to represent the Council.
5 At the time that the NGPC accepted the GAC consensus advice on the .GCC application, the LRO proceeding against the application was pending. WIPO, the LRO provider for this matter, sought ICANN's advice on whether to proceed with the LRO regarding .GCC. ICANN advised WIPO that the LRO should be terminated because the NGPC had removed the .GCC application from further processing based on its acceptance of the GAC consensus advice.
6 GCCIX submitted its Reconsideration Request challenging the NGPC's acceptance of the GAC consensus advice in 2013. At that time, the BGC, not the BAMC, was responsible for addressing Reconsideration Requests.