[council] ICANN Board Resolutions adopted at 37th meeting in Nairobi 12 March 2010

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi

12 March 2010

 1.  Consent 
Agenda<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1>
 2.  President's 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#2>
 3.  Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - Status 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#3>
 4.  New gTLDs Implementation - Status Report, and Consideration of Expressions 
of Interest 
Proposal<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#4>
 5.  New gTLDs Implementation - Vertical 
Integration<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>
 6.  New gTLDs Implementation - Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid 
Suspension System<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#6>
 7.  New gTLDs Implementation - Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure 
(PDDRP) - Legal 
Rights<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#7>
 8.  New gTLDs Implementation - Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation 
Procedure (RRDRP) - 
Community<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#8>
 9.  New gTLDs Implementation - IDN 3-Character 
Requirement<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#9>
 10. IDN Variants<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#10>
 11. New gTLDs Implementation - Communications 
Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#11>
 12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings 
Support<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#12>
 13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track 
Process<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#13>
 14. Framework for FY11 Operating 
Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#14>
 15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry 
v. ICANN<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#15>
 16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 
2010<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#16>
 17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 
10-1<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#17>
 18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 
10-1<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#18>
 19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training 
Program<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#19>
 20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD 
Applicants<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20>
 21. Other 
Business<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#21>
 22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO 
Volunteers<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#22>
 23. Thanks to 
Sponsors<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#23>
 24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel 
Teams<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#24>
 25. Thanks to Local 
Hosts<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#25>
 26. Thanks to Meeting 
Participants<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#26>

1. Consent Agenda

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

1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting

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

1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting

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

1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board

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

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

1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation

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

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

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

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

2. President's Report

(For discussion only.)

3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - Status Report

(For discussion only.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. New gTLDs Implementation - Vertical Integration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. New gTLDs Implementation - IDN 3-Character Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. IDN Variants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. New gTLDs Implementation - Communications Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan

(For discussion only.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. Other Business

[TBD]

22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers

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

Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and 
thank members of the community when their terms of service end; and

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

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

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

23. Thanks to Sponsors

The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Thanks to Local Hosts

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

Special thanks to:

Honorable Samuel Pogishio - Minister of Information and Communication, Kenya

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

Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK

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

Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee

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

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

Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee

Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee

Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP

Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP

Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee

Stephen Munguti - Security Committee

Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee

Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee

Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board

26. Thanks to Meeting Participants

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

Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog at this 
meeting;
Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org