Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 21 January 2024

Rationale for Resolution 2024.01.21.01

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The Board is taking this action in response to the advice of the RZERC. The Board's consideration of this advice forms a part of the Action Request Register (ARR) process designed to manage community requests to the Board and ICANN org in a consistent, efficient, and transparent manner.

What is the proposal being considered?

The root zone has been signed with the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) since 2010. DNSSEC does not authenticate sources and destinations of queries and responses, only whether or not it matches what was published by the zone operator. Although the root zone is signed with DNSSEC, the root-servers.net zone is not. Signed root zone name server data may be of benefit to validating recursive name servers (sometimes called "validators"), the clear advantage being the ability to ensure that root zone queries go only to real root name server addresses. However, signing the root zone name server data also introduces some potential problems.

The purpose of the work associated with RZERC002 Recommendation 2 is to "further explore the cost / benefit tradeoffs and risks of signed root zone name server data", in order to understand if the risks of redirected query traffic outweigh the risks of increased operational complexity.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

RZERC002 was created and edited by the RZERC, which has representatives from many of the stakeholders in the root server system. RZERC coordinates with the committee's respective organizations and communities, and as appropriate, external experts, to ensure that relevant bodies and impacted parties are involved in relevant discussions and recommendation development.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

No concerns or issues raised.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed RZERC002, ICANN org's understanding of the recommendation as confirmed by the RZERC, and ICANN org's feasibility assessment of implementation.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

The Board is acting based on its acceptance of ICANN org's implementation proposal for how to implement RZERC002 Recommendation 2.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Implementation of RZERC002 Recommendation 2 could lead to better security of the DNS if it leads to different choices for naming the root server system nameservers after an analysis of the benefits and risks of different proposals.

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

Implementation is anticipated to cost less than $50,000 and require a minimal amount of ICANN org time. Implementation would include hiring and overseeing the work of a contractor to conduct a study that would fulfill RZERC002 Recommendation 2.

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

Implementation will inform future decision making with regard to naming the root server system nameservers. As such, while there are no security, stability, or resiliency issues directly associated with implementation, the output could inform decision making that will enhance security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

Is this action within ICANN's Mission? How does it relate to the global public interest?

Implementation is in alignment with ICANN's strategic goals and mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Implementation would particularly support ICANN's strategic goal to increase the robustness of the DNS root zone key signing and distribution services.

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 action does not require Public Comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.01.21.02

ICANN is committed to attaining a high ethical standard to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the multistakeholder model. The Board's action today ensures efficiencies in managing conflicts of interests for Board members for areas in addition to the New gTLD Program: Next Round. This action will help ensure that the Board members are operating at the highest ethical standards and that decisions and deliberations are made with full awareness of individual conflicts of interest, which will further assist the Board in complying with its duties in accordance with its Conflicts of Interest Policy (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/coi-en).

This decision is within the public interest and consistent with ICANN's mission as it is expected to positively impact the ICANN community by ensuring that ICANN continues to operate to the highest ethical standards.

The action is not expected to have a fiscal impact on ICANN organization.

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

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.01.21.03 - 2024.01.21.04

Why is the Board addressing the issue now?

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

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to transfer the .LB top-level domain and assign the role of manager to the Internet Society Lebanon.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

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

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

IANA is not aware of any significant issues or concerns raised by the community in relation to this request. Of note, an objection was raised outside of the IANA process. After research, the source and substance of the objection could not be verified.

What significant materials did the Board review?

[Redacted – Sensitive Delegation Information]

What factors the Board found to be significant?

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

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.01.21.05 - 2024.01.21.06

Why is the Board addressing the issue now?

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

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to transfer the .CM top-level domain and assign the role of manager to Agence Nationale des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

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

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

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

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the following evaluations:

[Redacted – Sensitive Delegation Information]

What factors the Board found to be significant?

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

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.01.21.07 – 2024.01.21.08

Why is the Board addressing this issue now?

Over the past several years a variety of constituents, including governments and review teams, have been calling on ICANN org and the community to do more to combat DNS Abuse. In November 2022, the RrSG and RySG proposed to ICANN org the idea of collaborating to enhance the existing contracts by creating clear contractual obligations to stop or otherwise disrupt DNS Abuse. In their proposal, they suggested, and ICANN agreed, to certain guideposts for the amendments:

• The focus of the new provisions will be on DNS Abuse, as defined in the amendments;
• The amendments will neither include matters pertaining to website content abuses nor access to registration data;
• Any new provisions should appropriately reflect the roles and responsibilities of registrars and registries in each agreement, and will not seek to impose pass-through requirements on either group.

In January 2023, ICANN org responded to letters from the RrSG and RySG to formally initiate the process to amend the RAA and Base RA to strengthen the existing abuse mitigation obligations. The goal was to work expeditiously and produce narrowly targeted amendments to both the RAA and Base RA before ICANN77 held in June 2023, which the CPH NT and ICANN org were able to achieve by May 2023.

ICANN org  also developed a draft ICANN Advisory that will be issued if the proposed amendments are approved. The draft Advisory was developed in consultation with the CPH NT. The draft Advisory further explains the new requirements, provides guidance, and sets out expectations for action by CPs to establish compliance. The draft Advisory also elaborates upon terms like "mitigation actions," "appropriate," "stop" (contributing to stop), and "disrupt" (contributing to disrupt). Additionally, the draft Advisory contains examples of DNS Abuse, actionable evidence, and corresponding appropriate and prompt mitigation actions, considering the circumstances of each case.

The proposed amendments were posted for public comment from 29 May through 20 July 2023. The Public Comment proceeding was extended by one week in response to requests for additional time to submit input. As set out in the Public Comment Summary Report, ICANN org and the CPH NT confirmed that the proposed amendments met the stated objective of enhancing obligations by requiring registrars and registry operators to promptly take reasonable and appropriate action to stop or otherwise disrupt DNS Abuse.

On 25 September 2023, ICANN org notified applicable registrars and applicable registries of their eligibility to vote on the proposed Global Amendments to the RAA and Base RA. The 60-day voting period opened at 17:00 UTC on Monday, 9 October 2023 and closed at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 8 December 2023. Table 1 below provides an overview of the required thresholds to be considered approved by Applicable Registrars and Applicable Registry Operators, respectively. All calculations of the vote were conducted pursuant to Section 1.20.1 of the RAA and Section 7.6(j)(ii) of the Base RA.

Each year, ICANN's President and CEO works with the Executive team and the ICANN Board of Directors to develop a list of goals to address the most pressing issues before ICANN. These proposed Global Amendments to the RAA and Base RA are consistent with and in support of Goal #7 for ICANN's President and CEO for FY24, to enhance ICANN's ability to combat DNS Abuse. Furthermore, ICANN org and the contracted parties engaging in contractual negotiations to take firm practical steps to address DNS Abuse aligns with the recommendations made by the GNSO Small Team on DNS Abuse.

Table 1: Global Amendment Vote Thresholds and Tabulations

	Required Threshold	Final Vote Tabulations
Applicable Registry Operator - Fee Threshold	$25,267,202.47	$30,537,932.41
Applicable Registry Operator - Majority Threshold	567	864
Applicable Registrar Approval - Threshold	90%	94.01%

What is the proposal being considered?

The contractual amendments negotiated between ICANN org and the CPH NT include:

• Requirements to ensure abuse contacts are readily accessible on the CP's webpage and to provide the reporter with confirmation upon receipt of abuse reports
• The ability for registrars and registry operators to use webforms instead of email as an abuse reporting mechanism
• A definition of DNS Abuse for purposes of the RAA and Base RA
• A specific requirement to promptly take appropriate mitigation actions against domains for which the contracted party has actionable evidence demonstrating that the domains are being used for DNS Abuse
• Recognition that CPs should exercise reasonable discretion in selecting and implementing appropriate mitigation actions depending on the circumstances of each case
• Recognition of the different roles of registrars and registry operators
• A target outcome of stopping or otherwise disrupting the use of gTLD domain names for DNS Abuse

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

ICANN org conducted a Public Comment proceeding on the proposed Global Amendments from 29 May through 20 July 2023. The Global Amendments received Registrar Approval and Registry Operator Approval in accordance with Section 1.20.1 of the RAA and Section 7.6(j)(ii) of the Base RA.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

ICANN org received 36 comments on the proposed amendments to the RAA and Base RA from groups, organizations, and individuals. Comments noted in the Public Comment Summary Report provided general support for the proposed amendments with some offering feedback for ICANN org to consider including in the draft ICANN Advisory and/or the proposed amendments.

In general, the proposed amendments and the contractual obligations for DNS Abuse received strong support across the industry and ICANN community. Support was also received for the addition of an obligation to provide confirmation of receipt of an abuse report. Many comments encourage the CPs to approve and implement the proposed amendments which they stated would be a significant achievement of the multistakeholder model. NameCheap Inc., i2Coalition, and the RrSG, strongly support the proposed amendments to the RAA and Base RA, the draft ICANN Advisory, and encourage that they be adopted in their current form.

Regarding comments that the proposed amendments are insufficient to address the challenge of DNS Abuse, ICANN org acknowledged the comments and reminded the community that the ICANN community will have the opportunity to discuss these obligations and determine if further obligations are required. This is an important building block in a longer journey that could include policy discussions open to the full ICANN community, and potentially future negotiations between the CPH and ICANN org. Further policy development could also be pursued in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to broaden the examination of what additional obligations should exist and define in more detail what is expected of registrars and registry operators in a community-wide process. ICANN org and the CPH NT supported the comments from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) which stated that after the proposed amendments are adopted work should include Policy Development Processes (PDPs) to further inform the updated RAA and Base RA.

ICANN org reviewed the feedback and consulted with the CPH NT. Following robust consideration of the public comments, ICANN org and the CPH NT confirmed that the proposed amendments met their stated objective of enhancing obligations by requiring registrars and registry operators to promptly take reasonable and appropriate action to stop or otherwise disrupt DNS Abuse. As a result, no modifications were made to the proposed amendments or draft Advisory.

Additionally, during the 60-day voting period, ICANN org performed outreach to some of the contracted parties which voted against the amendments. Many smaller contracted parties expressed that they voted against the proposed amendments to maintain the status quo because keeping things as-is is easier for them operationally and financially.

What significant materials did the Board review?

As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

• 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
  • Proposed REDLINE of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement
  • Proposed CLEAN 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement
  • Proposed Global Amendment to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement
• Base Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Agreement (Base RA)
  • Proposed REDLINE of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement
  • Proposed CLEAN Base gTLD Registry Agreement
  • Proposed Global Amendment to the Base gTLD Registry Agreement
• Draft ICANN Advisory
• Public Comment Summary Report

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

The Board carefully considered the public comments received for the proposed Global Amendments, along with the summary and analysis of those comments. The Board also considered the provisions agreed upon by the CPH NT as part of the negotiations with ICANN org. The Board appreciates the general support from the ICANN community for the new contractual obligations for DNS Abuse negotiated between ICANN org and the CPH NT and for the significant steps taken to produce amendments that are narrowly targeted to address DNS Abuse in a tangible way.

The Board further recognizes the amendments are intended to result in prompt and reasonable mitigation actions that minimize the scope and intensity of the harm and victimization caused by DNS Abuse while limiting collateral damage caused by CPs' actions in response to the DNS Abuse. The proposed amendments contemplate that the best-equipped persons or entities conduct a thorough review of the matter, and take the appropriate, proportionate mitigation actions depending on the circumstances. The proposed amendments do not specify the mitigation actions or their timing, as such approach may not guarantee the desired outcome in all instances. ICANN org and the CPH NT discussed a prescriptive approach, but, ultimately, decided such an approach may unintentionally result in undesirable, disproportionate outcomes where DNS Abuse involves compromised domain names or delayed responses in situations where swift action is required. The appropriateness and promptness of the actions will depend on the specific circumstances of each case.

The Board also acknowledges the concerns expressed by some community members and contracted parties during the Public Comment proceeding, but believes that many of the concerns raised were either aimed at expanding the definition of DNS Abuse to issues such as content, which exceeds ICANN's remit, or things that can be discussed as part of the policy development processes related to DNS Abuse.

The Board is encouraged by the fact that on 7 November 2023, just 29 days into the 60-day voting period, the necessary registrar and registry operator thresholds were met for approval. This is a significant achievement made possible by the tremendous and collaborative collective efforts of ICANN org and the CPH NT, to raise awareness and engage with CPs and the broader ICANN community. The Board believes the proposed amendments are a significant step toward ensuring a safer Internet for all users.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

The proposed amendments will enable ICANN Contractual Compliance to take enforcement actions against those registrars or registry operators who fail to take prompt and appropriate action reasonably necessary to stop or otherwise disrupt well-evidenced DNS Abuse.

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

There is no significant fiscal impact expected from the approved amendments to the RAA or Base RA.

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

The approved amendments to the RAA and Base RA are not expected to create any security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.01.21.09

Today's action is in furtherance of the Board's 26 October 2023 action, wherein the Board, when taking Resolutions 2023.10.26.11 and 2023.10.26.12, identified that it would

[P]ursue a fundamental Bylaws change that will provide as follows: Where (1) the Final Report of a [Cross-Community Working Group] CCWG, approved by all chartering organizations, recommends that one or more Bylaws-defined accountability mechanisms should not be available to resolve disputes in specified circumstances; and (2) the Board agrees that the community recommendation is in the global interest, the Board shall then be authorized to direct ICANN Org to implement the CCWG recommendation that limits access to the Bylaws-defined accountability mechanism(s).

The Board's 26 October 2023 resolutions were addressing the Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) recommendation ("Recommendation 7") to limit access to ICANN's Independent Review Process and Reconsideration process(collectively, ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms) through the use of application terms and conditions as opposed to seeking an amendment to Bylaws setting forth ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms. In its rationale to the resolutions, the Board acknowledged the ICANN community concern with the Board's reference of this issue to a contract, stating:

The direction to ICANN org to use terms and conditions as a means to restrict applicant usage of ICANN's accountability mechanisms does not signal a broader intention by the Board or the org to limit access to ICANN's accountability mechanism through contracts. This is a specific situation where the community clearly recommended, with the support of each Chartering Organization, that the ICANN's accountability mechanisms should not be available for application-specific decisions. The Board agreed with this recommendation in June 2022 and continues to agree that community position remains in the public interest. The Board would not be taking today's action absent the community's clear recommendation.

The Board's direction to use terms and conditions now also does not foreclose future exploration of an appropriately tailored Bylaws change. First, the Board is interested in discussing with the community how the Bylaws might be changed to support future community recommendations by clarifying within the Bylaws the potential for the community to recommend limitations of access to ICANN's accountability mechanisms and for the Board to accept and direct implementation of those recommendations. Therefore, the Board will simultaneously pursue a fundamental Bylaws change . . . .

The ICANN Board is now able to initiate that Fundamental Bylaws amendment process and start that conversation with the community, through the posting of proposed amendments for public comment. The proposed amendment is to Article 4, Section 4.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, which introduces the ICANN Accountability Mechanisms that are specified at Bylaws Article 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.3. From a Bylaws clarity and drafting perspective, it is preferable to have a singular description of how the ICANN community may limit access to the ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, as opposed to restating such process within each impacted Bylaws section. The placement of this proposed update outside of the portions of the Bylaws enumerated as "Fundamental" under Article 25, Section 25.2, however, does not negate that the proposal is describing how the ICANN community may limit access to those Fundamental ICANN Accountability Mechanisms. As a result, the Board is relying upon the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process set out in Article 25, Section 25.2 of the ICANN Bylaws for the consideration of this proposal, inclusive of the Empowered Community's right of approval over these changes.

The ICANN Board looks forward to the community discussion over these proposed changes.

Today's action is directly related to how the ICANN community may hold ICANN accountable to its mission and work. It is in the public interest, and is aligned with ICANN's Bylaws, to seek public comment on changes to ICANN's Bylaws and the ICANN Accountability Mechanisms defined therein.

Initiating the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment process is not anticipated to result in any impact to the security, stability or resiliency of the Internet's DNS.  Nor is this action anticipated to result in any budgetary or financial implications.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.01.21.10 – 2024.01.21.13

The Board's action today is a significant step in supporting ICANN's accountability mechanisms. The ICANN Bylaws provide that an omnibus Standing Panel shall be established from which a three-member Independent Review Process (IRP) panel shall be selected to preside over specific IRP disputes. According to the Bylaws, the IRP Standing Panel shall consist of at least seven members, "each of whom shall possess significant relevant legal expertise in one or more of the following areas: international law, corporate governance, judicial systems, alternative dispute resolution and/or arbitration. Each member of the Standing Panel shall also have knowledge, developed over time, regarding the [Domain Name System] DNS and ICANN's Mission, work, policies, practices, and procedures." (ICANN Bylaws, Art. 4, Section 4.3(j)(i).)

The Bylaws, as revised on 1 October 2016, include a four-step process for establishing the IRP Standing Panel. This process includes, among other things, that ICANN organization "work with the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to identify and solicit applications from well-qualified candidates, conduct an initial review and vetting of applicants"; that the SOs and ACs "nominate a slate of proposed panel members from the well-qualified candidates"; and that the Board confirm the final section of the Standing Panel "which shall not be unreasonably withheld." (ICANN Bylaws, Art. 4, Section 4.3(j)(ii).)

Beginning in 2017, ICANN org began working with the community to implement the four-step process. After significant planning with the community, in early 2021 the community formed the IRP Community Representatives Group (CRG), comprised of seven persons nominated by the SOs and ACs. This group was charged with coordination with both ICANN org and an external expert in order to make a recommendation of a proposed slate of panelists to serve on ICANN's first IRP Standing Panel. The CRG worked closely with ICANN org to further its work, meeting at a regular cadence. Throughout the entirety of the Standing Panel selection process, ICANN org and the CRG membership enjoyed a constructive and collaborative relationship. Both worked together to uphold the requirements of Bylaws section 4.3(j). ICANN org, in exercise of its responsibility to assure that the CRG selected a slate from only well-qualified candidates, continually assessed the qualification of candidates at every stage where new information was learned.

The CRG relied upon the expertise of an external consultant, Odgers Berndtson, to help evaluate and narrow the initial group of 98 applicants down to 22 applicants for interviews, and eventually nominated 13 candidates to comprise the IRP Standing Panel. One of those candidates was previously assessed by ICANN org as ineligible for service pursuant to the Bylaws. The CRG noted that the Board retains the authority to approve the nominated slate while excluding the particular candidate.

Accordingly, the BAMC recommended, and the Board agrees, that the 12 remaining CRG nominated panelists represent a diverse breadth of experience and geography, that meet the requirements prescribed under Section 4.3(j) of the Bylaws to serve as the inaugural IRP Standing Panel. The Board therefore confirms the 12 candidates as the inaugural composition of the IRP Standing Panel.

The Board's action today represents the culmination of a long process to achieve this milestone. The Board's action is aligned with the Bylaws and the expectations of the community through the CRG.

The Board understands that membership confirmed by the Board today is still subject to contracting, and that ICANN org will be in a position to announce the full membership of the inaugural IRP Standing Panel upon completion of that contracting and other necessary administrative coordination. The Board acknowledges that the contracting will need to take into account for future continuity of the IRP Standing Panel, such that all terms should not conclude at the same time. ICANN org therefore should consider how the inaugural terms of the IRP Standing Panelist should be contracted, so long as no individual contract exceeds the five-year term requirement set forth within the Bylaws.

The Board extends its appreciation to the candidates that participated in the Standing Panel selection process. The Board further thanks to the community, especially the members of the CRG, for the considerable effort and time dedicated to developing the process and implementing Article 4, Section 4.3(j) of the Bylaws.

This action is consistent with ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as the IRP is an essential mechanism for holding the ICANN Board and the organization accountable, and the seating of the Standing Panel to hear these claims is an important component of achieving a consistent, binding outcome.

There will be some fiscal impact to the organization, but that impact has been anticipated within the FY24 budget. This resolution will not have any direct impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

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

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.01.21.14

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 Hamburg Communiqué (30 October 2023), the GAC issued advice to the Board on Closed Generic gTLDs. The GAC also provided follow-up to previous advice regarding Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation in ICANN and Future gTLDs Policies and Procedures. 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 all items in the Hamburg Communiqué, including the items related to Closed Generic gTLDs, Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation in ICANN, and Future gTLDs Policies and Procedures.

The Board's actions are described in the scorecard dated 21 January 2024.

In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the Hamburg Communiqué, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

• Hamburg Communiqué (30 October 2023): https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann78-hamburg-communique
• The GNSO Council's review of the advice in the Hamburg Communiqué as presented in the 1 December 2023 letter to the Board: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dibiase-to-sinha-01dec23-en.pdf

The adoption of the GAC 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.