[council] ICANN Board resolutions from 18 May 2013

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

See below.

Key resolutions include:

- location of October 2014 ICANN Meeting - Los Angeles

- study on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level 
of the public DNS in enterprises. The study should consider the potential 
security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage.

- approval of the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be a UDRP 
provider

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-18may13-en.htm




 
Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board

 
 
 1.  Consent Agenda:

        a.  Approval of Board Meeting Minutes

Resolved (2013.05.18.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 11 April 2013 
Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board.

        b.   FY2014 Budget Approval Timing

Whereas, the FY2014 Budget is currently out for public comment, which closes on 
20 June 2013.

Whereas, ICANN typically approves each year's budget during one of ICANN's 
Public meetings.

Whereas, ICANN's mid-year meeting this year, in Durban, South Africa (14-18 
July 2013), is taking place after the initiation of the 2014 Fiscal Year, which 
begins on 1 July 2014.

Resolved (2013.05.18.02), the ICANN Board intends to approve the FY2014 Budget 
during the ICANN public meeting in Durban, South Africa.

Resolved (2013.05.18.03), for the period of time beginning on 1 July 2013 
through to the date the Board approves the FY2014 Budget, the Board directs the 
President and CEO to operate ICANN in a manner consistent with the FY2014 
Budget that is posted for public comment.


        c.  Site of the October 2014 ICANN Meeting in North America

Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2014 in the North America 
region as per its policy, and in line with the Board's 20 December 2012 
Resolution on 2014 meeting locations.

Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of all available meeting venues 
in North America and finds the one in Los Angeles, California to be the most 
suitable.

Whereas, the Board Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee agreed to Los 
Angeles, California as the site for the ICANN 2014 North America Meeting.

Resolved (2013.05.18.04), the Board approves Los Angeles, California as the 
location of the ICANN 2014 North America Public meeting, which is scheduled for 
12-17 October 2014.

Resolved (2013.05.18.05), the 2014 Los Angeles ICANN Public meeting is 
designated as ICANN's 2014 Annual Meeting.

Resolved (2013.05.18.06), the Board reaffirms its 20 December 2012 resolution 
authorizing the President and CEO to make all necessary arrangements to conduct 
the 2014 ICANN Meetings, including all necessary contracting and disbursements.

        d.  ACDR Proposal to be a UDRP Provider

Whereas, the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution (ACDR) submitted a proposal to 
ICANN to be approved as an UDRP provider.

Whereas, the ACDR proposal was posted for public comment on 28 September 2010 
and a revised version was posted on 1 March 2013, which took into account 
comments received; ACDR has produced a further revised proposal addressing a 
final issue raised in the 1 March 2013 public comment forum.

Whereas, the revised ACDR proposal meets the suggested elements as set forth in 
Information Concerning Approval Process for Dispute Resolution Service 
Providers.

Resolved (2013.05.18.07), the Board approves the application of ACDR to become 
a UDRP provider, and advises the President and CEO, through the General 
Counsel's Office, to enter into discussions with ACDR regarding the process for 
ACDR's provision of UDRP services.

Rationale for Resolution 2013.05.18.07

The Board's approval of the ACDR application brings to a close the work of the 
ACDR (in cooperation with ICANN staff) in working to meet the standards and 
elements of the process for approval of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution 
Policy ("UDRP") providers. This enhances ICANN's accountability through 
adherence to its processes. In addition, the approval of the first UDRP 
provider located in the Middle East enhances ICANN's accountability to the 
Internet community as a whole, enhancing choice for UDRP complainants.

The ACDR's proposal was posted twice for public comment. All of the comments 
received were provided to ACDR for consideration. Some of the comments in 
opposition addressed issues such as the level of fees, which is fully within 
the ACDR's purview. Other commenters suggested that ICANN develop contracts 
with each of its UDRP providers as a means to require uniformity among 
providers. Contracts have never been required of UDRP providers. On the issue 
of uniformity among providers, however, the ACDR's proposal does two things: 
first, highlighted areas where risk of non-uniform conduct was perceived (such 
as issues with commencement dates and definitions of writings) have been 
modified; second, the proposal now includes an affirmative recognition that if 
ICANN imposes further requirements on providers, the ACDR will follow those 
requirements; third, the ACDR has revised a specific portion of its 
Supplemental Rules that was highlighted by commenters as a potential risk to 
uniformity. This is a positive advancement and helps address concerns of 
ICANN's ability to, in the future, identify areas where uniformity of action is 
of its obligation to abide by ICANN modifications that could enhance uniformity 
among providers.

ICANN's consideration of the ACDR's proposal also highlights the import of 
accountability to the community. After the community requested the opportunity 
to see the proposal again prior to approval, the Board agreed and asked staff 
to proceed with a further comment period. In addition, the Board also requested 
that staff report to the community on how ICANN's earlier consideration of UDRP 
provider uniformity issues was concluded. As a result, a briefing paper has 
been prepared and will be publicly posted.

There is a minimal resource impact on ICANN as a result of this decision in 
assuring that ICANN staff is available to work with the ACDR in starting and 
maintaining its work as a provider. There is no expected impact on the 
security, stability or the resiliency of the DNS as a result of this decision.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was 
received.


2.   Main Agenda:

a.  SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates

Whereas, the delegation of TLDs in a way that promotes security and a good user 
experience is a longstanding topic of importance to ICANN's Board and the 
global Internet community.

Whereas, on 15 March 2013, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee 
(SSAC) published SAC 057: SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates.

Whereas, enterprises have local environments that may include strong 
assumptions about which top-level domains exist at the root level of the public 
DNS, and/or have introduced local top-level domains that may conflict with 
names yet to be delegated at the root level of the public DNS.

Whereas, in its stewardship role, ICANN wishes to determine what these 
potential clashes are.

Resolved (2013.05.18.08), the Board directs the President and CEO, in 
consultation with the SSAC, to commission a study on the use of TLDs that are 
not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises. The 
study should consider the potential security impacts of applied-for new-gTLD 
strings in relation to this usage.

Resolved (2013.05.18.09), the Board requests RSSAC to assist ICANN in the 
collection of data and observations related to root server operations that are 
relevant for the study, and to work with root server operators to enable 
sharing of such data and observations as appropriate, in the most expedient way 
possible.

Resolved (2013.05.18.10), The Board directs the President and CEO to reach out 
to the Certificate Authority/Browser forum to collect statistics on the 
distribution of internal name certificates by top-level domain, in the most 
expedient way possible.

Resolved (2013.05.18.11), the Board requests the SSAC to consider offering 
additional advice based on its assessment of the issues identified in the ICANN 
study, in the most expedient way possible.

Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.08 - 2013.05.18.11

Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

The internal certificate issue identified by SSAC in SAC 057 is a symptom that 
enterprises have local environments that include strong assumptions about the 
static number of top-level domains and/or have introduced local top-level 
domains that may conflict with names yet to be allocated. Regardless of whether 
these assumptions are valid or not, to be proactive in its stewardship role, 
ICANN wishes to determine what security and stability implications these 
potential conflicts have, especially since applications for new gTLDs are in 
the process of being evaluated by ICANN for delegation into the root. This 
study also sets a precedent for potential future TLD rounds, where similar 
studies might need to be conducted as a matter of due diligence.

What are the proposals being considered?

The Board requests the ICANN President and CEO to commission a study on the use 
of TLDs not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in 
enterprises. The study would also consider the potential security impacts of 
applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. In fulfilling the 
study, the Board is also considering requesting RSSAC to assist root operators 
in providing some statistics and observations. Finally the Board is considering 
requesting the SSAC to consider whether it has additional advice for the Board 
based on its analysis of the study.

What Stakeholders or others were consulted?

The SSAC presented the "SAC 057: SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates" 
to the ICANN community in Beijing. As a result, the SSAC received feedback from 
the community on this issue and their input informed the SSAC's request.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community? 

Some community members have raised concerns about the use of TLDs that are not 
currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS and its impact to 
enterprises when ICANN delegates these TLDs into the public DNS. Some have 
asked for an evaluation of such risks so that the ICANN community can make 
informed decisions. Some have said that their studies show no significant risk 
to the security and stability of the DNS and have exhorted ICANN to continue on 
the course of evaluation and eventual delegation of all successful gTLD 
applications, regardless of conflict due to internal name certificates.

What significant materials did Board review?

The SSAC Report on Internal Name Certificates1 [PDF, 1.14 MB], The SSAC Report 
on invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System 
(15 November 2010 with corrections)2 [PDF, 507 KB], Report of the Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee on Root Scaling (6 December 2010)3 [PDF, 175 KB]

What factors the Board found to be significant?

In taking its action, the Board considered the recommendations of the SSAC in 
SAC 045, 046 and 057.

Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

The Board's action to direct staff, through the President and CEO, to 
commission a detailed study on the risks related to the use of TLDs that are 
not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises will 
provide a positive impact on the community as it will enhance the understanding 
of this issue by providing additional information on security impacts of 
applied-for new-gTLD strings in relation to this usage. This will permit the 
community and the Board to understand in more detail the potential security and 
stability concerns if TLDs that are in conflict are delegated, and the impact 
on the overall functionality of the Internet.

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

This action is not expected to have an impact on ICANN's resources, and 
directing this work to be done may result in changes to the implementation 
plans for new gTLDs. While the study itself will not have a fiscal impact on 
ICANN, the community or the public, it is possible that study might uncover 
risks that result in the requirement to place special safeguards for gTLDs that 
have conflicts. It is also possible that some new gTLDs may not be eligible for 
delegation.

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

SAC057 has identified several security risks to the DNS. This study intends to 
provide a more quantitative view of the problem, and to provide information 
that would inform future decisions.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is 
not required. However, any recommendations arising out of the work directed 
through this resolution are likely to require community input prior to Board 
consideration.


        b.  SSAC Budget Request

Whereas, on 11 April 2013, the Board approved SO/AC budget requests submitted 
through the Fast-Track Process for inclusion in the FY2014 Budget. 


Whereas, the Board did not approve at that time a request from the SSAC 
regarding additional travel to the ICANN meeting in Durban.

Resolved, (2013.05.18.12), the Board now approves the SSAC request in the 
amount of US$20,000 for additional travel to the ICANN meeting in Durban for 
inclusion in ICANN's Fiscal Year 2014 budget as part of the SO/AC Additional 
Budget Requests Fast-Track Process.

Rationale for Resolution 2013.05.18.12

The SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process leads to budget 
approval earlier than usual is a reasonable accommodation for activities that 
begin near the beginning of FY14. This slight augmentation to ICANN's 
established budget approval process and timeline helps facilitate the work of 
the ICANN Community and of the ICANN Staff, and does not create additional 
expenses.

Upon the recommendation of the Board Finance Committee, and in light of the 
specific role that the SSAC plays within ICANN, this decision is important to 
the work regarding the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, though no 
direct anticipated impact on the security, stability or resiliency on the DNS 
is expected as a result of this decision.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which ICANN received 
community input.


3.   Executive Session:

a.   CEO At-Risk Compensation

Whereas, each Board member has confirmed that he/she does not have a conflict 
of interest with respect to establishing the amount of payment for the 
President and CEO's FY13 T2 at-risk compensation payment.

Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment 
to the President and CEO for his FY13 T2 at-risk compensation.

Resolved (2013.05.18.13), the Board hereby approves a payment to the President 
and CEO for his FY13 T2 at-risk compensation component.

Resolved (2013.05.18.14), specific items within this resolution shall remain 
confidential as an "action relating to personnel or employment matters", 
pursuant to Article III, section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws.

Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.13 - 2013.05.18.14

When the President and CEO was hired, he was offered a based salary, plus an 
at-risk component of his compensation package. Consistent with all ICANN staff, 
the President and CEO is evaluated against specific goals that he sets in 
coordination with the Compensation Committee.

In Beijing, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve the 
President and CEO's at-risk Compensation for the second trimester of FY13 and 
the Board agrees with that recommendation.

While this will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, it is an impact that was 
contemplated in the FY13 budget. This decision will not have an impact on the 
security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

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


        b. Confidential Resolution

[Resolutions Redacted]

Resolved (2013.05.18.18), specific items of this resolution [Resolutions 
2013.05.18.15, 2013.05.18.16 and 2013.05.18.17] shall remain confidential as an 
"action relating to personnel or employment matters", pursuant to Article III, 
section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, and the entire resolution shall remain 
confidential pursuant to this same Bylaws provision pending determination by 
the President and CEO that the non-confidential portion can be made public.

Rationale for Resolutions 2013.05.18.15 - 2013.05.18.18

[Rationale Redacted]