[council] Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

See below for ICANN Board resolutions.

Highlights include:

- new chair/vice-chair of SSAC - Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as 
Vice Chair.

- alignment of GNSO Board member terms with mid-year ICANN board meeting (item 
2 of main agenda)

- Approval of Telnic RSEP request for release of numeric-only strings except 
for single-character labels

- Agenda item 4(a) - RESOLVED (2011.01.25.22), the Board will not commission 
any further economic studies on new gTLDs in advance of making its decision on 
the launch of the new gTLD Program as the Board has determined that no further 
commissioned economic studies could better inform the Board's decision.

- Agenda item 4(b) RESOLVED (2010.01.25.23), the Board adopts the Proposed 
Rationale as the Rationale for the Board's decision on cross-ownership between 
registries and registrars in the New gTLD Program.

- Agenda item 5 (a) new gTLDs:
  
"Resolved (2011.01.25.24), the ICANN Board hereby determines that it intends to 
progress toward launching the New gTLD Program, as close as practically 
possible to the form as set out in the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2011.01.25.25), the Board hereby determines to take actions on the 
Topics listed above that, at present, are not consistent with GAC advice.

Resolved (2011.01.25.26), the ICANN Board hereby triggers the consultation as 
provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), 
which shall take place on Thursday, 17 March 2011, during the ICANN SV/SF 
meeting.

Resolved (2011.01.25.27), the Bylaws-mandated consultation triggered above 
shall be limited to the Topics discussed at the Meeting for which the Board has 
not changed its position during or after the Meeting, and that remain not 
consistent with GAC advice."

- Agenda item 5 (b) ICM: 

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.28), the Board directs staff to provide the GAC with the 
document setting forth the full Board position on items of GAC advice. The 
Board positions set forth correspond to the items identified for consultation 
at the Board's 28 October 2010 meeting.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.29), the ICANN Board hereby establishes that the 
consultation on ICM as triggered in Cartagena and as provided for in ICANN 
Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), shall take place no later 
than Thursday, 17 March 2011.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin











From:  http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jan11-en.htm

Adopted Board Resolutions

25 January 2011

Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors*Note: Where available, draft 
Rationale of the Board’s actions is presented under the associated Resolution. 
The draft Rationale is not final until approved with the minutes of the Board 
meeting.



1.Consent Agenda
RESOLVED, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby approved:

a. Approval of Minutes of 8 December 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting
RESOLVED (2011.01.25.01) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 8 
December 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting.

b. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting
RESOLVED (2011.01.25.02) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 10 
December 2010 ICANN Regular Board Meeting.

c. Approval of Minutes of 10 December 2010 ICANN Organizational Board Meeting
RESOLVED (2011.01.25.03) the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 10 
December 2010 ICANN Organizational Board Meeting.


d. Approval of Revised Charter of the Finance Committee

Whereas, the Board Finance Committee (BFC) is currently operating under a 
Charter approved in 2000, available at 
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/finance/.

Whereas, as part of the BFC's obligation to review its operations and make 
appropriate recommendations for updates or enhancements, on 5 December 2010 the 
BFC approved a Revised Charter that better reflects the BFC's current 
operations. The Revised Charter also incorporates, unchanged, the standard 
language for Board Committee Charters as previously approved by the Board 
Governance Committee. See 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#10.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.04), the Revised Charter of the Board Finance Committee is 
approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.04
Approving the revised Board Finance Committee (BFC) charter at this time makes 
sense as the revised version better reflects the current operations of the BFC 
than the prior version. It also now conforms to the recent revisions to all 
other charters, as approved by the Board Governance Committee. Further, the 
revised charter reflects the BFC's activities as they relate to the size and 
scope of ICANN in 2011 and that the BFC is operating in accordance with the 
best practices. In developing the revised Charter both best practices as well 
as the actual operations of ICANN's BFC were reviewed and considered 
significant to approve the revised charter.

The approval of the Revised BFC Charter should have a positive public effect in 
that it increases the accountability and transparency of the organization and 
aligns with the BFC's current activities and best practices. There is no 
financial impact on ICANN or the community by revising the BFC charter. 
Confirmation of the BFC mandate through revision to its charter does not 
present any impact on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the 
DNS.


e. From SSAC – Appointment of SSAC Chair

Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws governs the Security 
and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Whereas, Article XI, Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Bylaws states that the 
Board shall appoint the Chair and the members of the SSAC.

Whereas, on 10 December 2010 Steve Crocker announced his intention to resign as 
Chair of the SSAC upon the selection by the SSAC of a new Chair and appointment 
by the Board.

Whereas, on 22 December 2010 Ray Plzak resigned as Vice Chair of the SSAC.

Whereas, the SSAC initiated an election for Chair and Vice Chair from the 
members of the Committee beginning 10 December 2010 and ending 07 January 2011.

Whereas, the Committee elected Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as 
Vice Chair.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.05), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and 
appoints Patrik Fältström as Chair of the SSAC and extends its best wishes to 
Patrik Fältström and to James Galvin in their important new roles.


f. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member – Christophe Reverd

Whereas, Christophe Reverd was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability 
Advisory Committee on 26 June 2009.

Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Christophe Reverd for his 
service to the community by his membership on the Security and Stability 
Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.06), that Christophe Reverd has earned the deep 
appreciation of the Board for his service to ICANN by his membership on the 
Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Christophe 
Reverd well in all future endeavours.

g. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Member & Vice-Chair – Ray Plzak

Whereas, Ray Plzak was appointed to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory 
Committee on 17 May 2002.

Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank Ray Plzak for his service to the 
community as Vice Chair and member of the Security and Stability Advisory 
Committee.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.07) that Ray Plzak has earned the deep appreciation of the 
Board for his service to ICANN as Vice Chair and member of the Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee, and that the Board wishes Ray Plzak well in all 
future endeavours.


h. From SSAC – Thank you to departing SSAC Chair – Steve Crocker

Whereas, Dr. Stephen Crocker was appointed as Chair of the ICAN Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee on 14 March 2002.

Whereas, Dr. Crocker has served with consummate skill and dedication as the 
Chair of the SSAC.

Whereas, Dr. Crocker brought structure and substance to the operation of the 
SSAC, and led the Committee through major landmark events such as SiteFinder 
and Root Scaling.

Whereas, Dr. Crocker expanded the membership of SSAC to include subject matter 
experts on a broad range of topics, simultaneously increasing the Committee's 
geographic diversity and depth of Staff support.

Whereas, Dr. Crocker guided the SSAC through its first comprehensive external 
review, and ensured the implementation of all recommendations in a timely 
manner.

Whereas, Steve Crocker transformed the Security and Stability Advisory 
Committee from a concept to excellence in execution, resulting in enhanced 
credibility to the Committee in specific and to ICANN in general.

Whereas, on 10 December 2010 Dr. Crocker announced his intention to resign as 
Chair of the SSAC upon the selection by the SSAC of a new Chair and appointment 
by the Board.

Whereas, the SSAC initiated an election for Chair and Vice Chair from the 
members of the Committee beginning 10 December 2010 and ending 07 January 2011.

Whereas, the Committee elected Patrik Fältström as Chair and James Galvin as 
Vice Chair.

Whereas, on 25 January 2011 the Board appointed Patrik Fältström as the new 
Chair of the SSAC.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.08), that Dr. Crocker has earned the tremendous gratitude 
and deep appreciation of the Board for his tireless service and dedication to 
ICANN as Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and that the 
Board wishes Dr. Crocker well in all future endeavours.


i. Approval to Track Global Policy Process for IPv4 Post-Exhaustion

Whereas, the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number Resource 
Policies Forwarded for Ratification by the ASO Address Council in Accordance 
with the ASO MoU, states that "When, in accordance with step 1 in the Global 
Policy Development Process of the ASO MoU (Attachment A, article 1), ICANN 
staff liaising with the addressing community becomes aware of a global policy 
development within the scope of the ASO MoU, ICANN staff informs the ICANN 
Board of this development. The Board decides, as and when appropriate, that 
this development should be followed by ICANN staff and instructs the ICANN CEO 
to assign staff for this purpose. ICANN staff so assigned shall inform all 
ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, shall establish an 
ICANN web page to be kept up to date and shall compile a background report to 
be kept up to date on this global policy development. This background report 
shall be provided to the Board as requested."

Whereas, ICANN staff has informed the Board that a policy proposal entitled 
"Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by the IANA post exhaustion" 
is in development and that this Proposal has entered the first adoption steps 
within the individual RIRs as well as being recognized by the ASO Address 
Council as a valid Global Policy Proposal.

Whereas, the Proposal is identified as a global policy development within the 
scope of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the ASO.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.09), the Board requests that the development of the policy 
proposal entitled "Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by the 
IANA post exhaustion" be followed by ICANN staff in line with the Board's 
Review Procedures for such policy proposals and instructs the ICANN CEO to 
assign staff for this purpose.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.09
The Global Policy Proposal has reached the discussion stage in all Regional 
Internet Registries and the time is ripe to start producing and posting 
Background Reports on the Proposal's status. Directing staff to conduct the 
required tracking work is in furtherance of ICANN's obligations under the MoU 
with the ASO and the Board's Review Procedures for Global Internet Number 
Resource Policies.

There will be a nominal budgetary impact when directing staff to track the 
Proposal, as ICANN staff are already allocated to the ASO, and the tracking of 
proposals at this stage require limited staff effort. If approved, future 
implementation may pose additional impacts on the budget, public and 
security/stability related issues, but those are not ripe for assessment at 
this time. Requiring staff tracking at this stage will also allow for advance 
preparation in advance of a request from the ASO for ratification.


j. Approval of RSSAC Review Implementation Plan

Whereas, on 5 August 2010, the Board resolved to receive the Final Report of 
the RSSAC review Working Group, and directed the Structural Improvements 
Committee (SIC) "to present a set of suggested actions for approval at the 
October 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and 
recommendations formulated in the final report of this Working Group", at 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#2.f.

Whereas, ICANN staff members supporting the organizational reviews identified a 
set of measures in a document "RSSAC review WG final report: implementation 
steps", dated December 2010, to address the recommendations arising out of the 
Working Group and provided those to the SIC.

Whereas, the SIC finds the proposed measures are adequate and proposes to have 
staff, working in coordination with the SIC, to finalize an implementation plan 
based upon the implementation steps identified, and to provide a final 
implementation plan to the Board for receipt and consideration.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.10), the Board approves the "RSSAC review WG final report: 
implementation steps" put forward by the SIC and instructs the SIC, in 
coordination with staff, to provide the Board with a final implementation plan 
to address the conclusions and recommendations in the final reports of the 
RSSAC review Working Group.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.10
The proposed implementation steps were provided to the Board in fulfillment of 
the Board's 5 August 2010 resolution requiring the submission of this proposal. 
The implementation steps address the recommendations arising out of the Review 
Working Group's Final Report. A draft Final Report was posted for public 
comment and no comments were received, including none indicating that there 
would be a negative impact if the recommendations were adopted. Further, 
adoption of the implementation plan for the RSSAC Review will set the stage for 
a dedicated staff effort to improve cooperation and communication between ICANN 
and the root server operators within the framework of the RSSAC structure.

Directing the creation of a final implementation plan will have a nominal 
budgetary impact, in that it will require further resources of the staff 
supporting ICANN's Organizational Reviews. The identification of final 
implementation steps is anticipated to occur within the resources already 
allocated. The further impact of the implementation work will be identified as 
practicable.


k. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Create a Non-Voting Chair-Elect to 
the Nominating Committee

Whereas, Article VII, Section 2 and 3 of the Bylaws govern the composition of 
the Nominating Committee (NomCom) and the terms of the NomCom members.

Whereas, in its final report published 29 January 2010 
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf,
 the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group recommended that the Chair of the 
NomCom be elected one year in advance, requiring changes to the ICANN Bylaws in 
Article VII, Section 2 and 3 at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VII.

Whereas, on 12 March 2010, the Board received the NomCom Review final report 
and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions 
necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6.

Whereas, the SIC, at its 14 October 2010 meeting, recommended that the Bylaws 
should be amended to achieve the recommendation of the NomCom Review 
Finalization Working Group by electing the NomCom Chair one year in advance, 
while also highlighting that the related Bylaws amendments must incorporate 
appropriate flexibility for the Board.

Whereas, the Board, at its 28 October 2010 meeting, resolved that the proposed 
Bylaws amendments should be posted for public comments.

Whereas, the proposed Bylaws amendments, see 
http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-vii-10nov10-en.pdf, 
were posted for public comments from 10 November to 10 December 2010 and this 
period elapsed without any comments being received.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.11), the Board approves the proposed Bylaws amendments and 
directs staff to work with the Structural Improvements Committee to prepare for 
implementation of the new provisions to be effective for the 2013 Nominating 
Committee.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.11
The Bylaws amendments proposed will have the purpose of achieving the 
recommendation of the NomCom Review Finalization Working Group by designating 
the NomCom Chair one year in advance, while preserving appropriate flexibility 
for the Board to review the candidate for the Chair.

As no public comments have been received indicating that this would not be a 
positive change regarding the Nominating Committee and its processes. The 
budgetary impact of this is neutral, as the transition from the non-voting 
advisor to the Chair to the Chair-Elect does not represent a change in the 
number of Nominating Committee members supported through the budget for the 
Nominating Committee.


l. Thanks to the 2010 Nominating Committee

Whereas, on 27 August 2009, ICANN appointed Wolfgang Kleinwächter as Chair of 
the Nominating Committee.

Whereas, the 2010 Nominating Committee consisted of delegates from each of 
ICANN's constituencies and advisory bodies.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.12), the ICANN Board expresses its deep appreciation to 
Wolfgang Kleinwächter and all of the members of the 2010 Nominating Committee 
for their dedication, hard work, and successful efforts.


m. Approval of Redelegation of the .BF domain representing Burkina Faso

Whereas, BF is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for Burkina 
Faso.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .BF to the Autorité 
de Régulation des Communications Electroniques;

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.13), the proposed redelegation of the .BF domain to the 
Autoritéde Régulation des Communications Electroniques is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.13
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain. In line with established practice, the ICANN 
Board is involved in making the decision to proceed with such requests as one 
step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is 
eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed 
manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed 
operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed 
manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed 
manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a 
transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.


n. Approval of Redelegation of the .CD domain representing the Democratic 
Republic of Congo

Whereas, CD is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo;

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .CD to Office 
Congolais des Postes et Telecommunications;

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.14), the proposed redelegation of the .CD domain to the 
Office Congolais des Postes et Telecommunications is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.14
Why the Board is addresing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria.

This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed 
in the ISO

3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by the local 
Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is operationally and 
technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is based locally and 
bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager operates fairly and 
equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer of operations that an 
appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing stability of the domain; and 
establishing that the action is compatible with any applicable local laws and 
regulations. During the staff compilation process, the applicant is asked to 
provide a variety of materials in support of these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.


o. Approval of Redelegation of the .SY domain representing the Syrian Arab 
Republic

Whereas, SY is the ISO 3166-1 two-letter country-code designated for the Syrian 
Arab Republic;

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .SY to the National 
Agency for Network Services;

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
redelegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.15), the proposed redelegation of the .SY domain to the 
National Agency for Network Services is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.15
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria. This criteria includes establishing the country-code is 
eligible (e.g. listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed 
manager is supported by the local Internet community; establishing the proposed 
operator is operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed 
manager is based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed 
manager operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a 
transfer of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.

p. Approval of Delegation of the .한국 ("Hanguk") domain representing the 
Republic of Korea in Korean 

Whereas, 한국 ("Hanguk"), encoded as "xn--3e0b707e", is a string that has been 
deemed to appropriately represent the Republic of Korea through the IDN Fast 
Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .한국 to the Korea 
Internet & Security Agency.

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.16), the proposed delegation of the .한국 domain to the 
Korea Internet & Security Agency is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.16
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria.

This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed 
in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by 
the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is 
operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is 
based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager 
operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer 
of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.

q. Approval of Delegation of the .新加坡 ("Singapore") domain, and the 
.சிங்கப்பூர் ("Singapore") domain, representing Singapore in Chinese and Tamil 

Whereas, Singapore is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas, 新加坡 ("Singapore"), encoded as "xn--yfro4i67o"; and சிங்கப்பூர் 
("Singapore"), encoded as "xn--clchc0ea0b2g2a9gcd"; are two strings that were 
deemed to appropriately represent Singapore through the IDN Fast Track process;

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .新加坡 and .சிங்கப்பூர் 
to Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd;

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.17), the proposed delegation of the top-level domains to 
Singapore Network Information Centre Pte Ltd is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.17
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria.

This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed 
in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by 
the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is 
operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is 
based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager 
operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer 
of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.


r. Approval of Delegation of the .سورية ("Sourya") domain representing the 
Syrian Arab Republic in Arabic 

Whereas, the Syrian Arab Republic is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 
standard;

Whereas, .سورية ("Sourya"), encoded as "xn--ogbpf8fl", is a string that has 
been deemed to appropriately represent the Syrian Arab Republic through the IDN 
Fast Track process.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .سورية to the National 
Agency for Network Services.

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
delegation would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.18), the proposed delegation of the .سورية ("Sourya") 
domain to the National Agency for Network Services is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.18
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria.

This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed 
in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by 
the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is 
operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is 
based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager 
operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer 
of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.

s. Approval of Delegation of the seven top-level domains representing India in 
various languages

Whereas, India is currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard;

Whereas, भारत ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--h2brj9c"; بھارت "Bharat"), encoded as 
"xn--mgbbh1a71e"; భారత్ ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--fpcrj9c3d"; ભારત 
("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--gecrj9c"; ਭਾਰਤ ("Bharat"), encoded as 
"xn--s9brj9c"; இந்தியா ("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--xkc2dl3a5ee0h"; and ভারত 
("Bharat"), encoded as "xn--45brj9c"; are seven strings that were deemed to 
appropriately represent India through the IDN Fast Track process;

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of the seven strings as 
top-level domains to the National Internet Exchange of India;

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed 
delegations would be in the interests of the local and global Internet 
communities.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.19), the proposed delegation of the seven top-level 
domains to the National Internet Exchange of India is approved.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.19
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

Staff present delegation and redelegation requests for country-code domains to 
the Board for decision, once staff are satisfied the applicant has provided a 
sufficiently complete application that has a reasonable prospect of a positive 
Board decision. In line with ICANN's commitments to perform timely processing 
of requests relating to the IANA function, and the DNS root zone in particular, 
the ICANN Board seeks to evaluate such requests at its next scheduled Special 
Meeting.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to approve a request to IANA to change or designate the 
sponsoring organisation (also known as the manager or trustee) of a 
country-code top-level domain.

In line with established practice, the ICANN Board is involved in making the 
decision to proceed with such requests as one step of this multi-step process.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In the course of evaluating a delegation application, ICANN staff consults with 
the applicant, the current operator (if applicable), and other directly 
connected parties. In line with ICANN's practice of keeping incomplete root 
zone change requests in confidence, ICANN has not performed open consultation 
on this matter.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

Any concerns or issues are raised within the public report that will be 
published in conjunction with this action. This report will be published on the 
IANA website at http://www.iana.org/ should the root zone change request has 
successfully completed final processing, usually 1-2 months after the Board's 
decision.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board is involved in assessing requests against a variety of public 
interest criteria.

This criteria includes establishing the country-code is eligible (e.g. listed 
in the ISO 3166-1 standard); establishing the proposed manager is supported by 
the local Internet community; establishing the proposed operator is 
operationally and technically competent; establishing the proposed manager is 
based locally and bound under local law; establishing the proposed manager 
operates fairly and equitably; establishing that in cases there is a transfer 
of operations that an appropriate plan is in place to preserve ongoing 
stability of the domain; and establishing that the action is compatible with 
any applicable local laws and regulations. During the staff compilation 
process, the applicant is asked to provide a variety of materials in support of 
these various aspects.

Pertinent information from these supplied materials and other staff research is 
provided to the Board, and published in a public report at the end of 
implementing an approved request.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board considers factors described in the public report, in relation to the 
basic principles of country-code domain delegation described earlier.

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, and the 
local communities to which country-code top-level domains are designated to 
serve.

Are there fiscal 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 
fiscal impact of the internal operations of country-code top-level domains 
within a country, other than ensuring the operator is based in country and has 
the appropriate mechanisms to allow the local Internet community to properly 
oversee the domain's ongoing operation.

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

For country-code top-level domain delegations, ICANN seeks to approve only such 
requests where reasonable concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the 
proposed new manager has demonstrated a sufficient level of operational and 
technical competency where such concerns should be minimal.


Main Agenda
===========
============

2. Approval of Proposed Bylaws Amendments Changing Term Ending Dates for 
Supporting Organization and At-Large Selected Board Members

Whereas, the Bylaws currently require that all incoming members of the ICANN 
Board of Directors not selected by the Nominating Committee (NomCom) are seated 
on the Board six months after the prior year's Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Whereas, six months after the prior year's AGM typically occurs in between 
ICANN's International Public Meetings ("Meeting").

Whereas, the Board Review Working Group (BRWG) recommended that the seating of 
Board members not appointed by NomCom occur at a mid-year Meeting to facilitate 
the smooth transition of Board members.

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee ("BGC") considered this issue, agreed 
with the rationale of the BRWG, but recognized that a mid-year Meeting may not 
always occur; the BGC thus recommended modifications to the BRWG recommendation 
to allow for seating of incoming directors without delay.

Whereas, proposed Bylaws amendments to reflect the BRWG recommendations were 
posted for public comment for two months (8 November 2010 through 8 January 
2011) at 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#bylaws-amend-article-vi8.


Whereas, just one public comment, supporting the proposed amendments, was 
received during the public comment period.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.20), the Board approves the proposed Bylaws amendments 
necessary to facilitate a change in transition of Board members selected by the 
Supporting Organizations or At-Large community.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.20
Following an independent review by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) of the 
ICANN Board 
(http://www.icann-ombudsman.com/en/reviews/board/report-02nov08-en.pdf), a 
Board Review Working Group (BRWG) as formed to help determine implementation 
feasibility of the BCG recommendations. The BRWG, after numerous meetings, 
extensive email communications and document analysis, issued its Final Report 
(http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf) in 
January 2010. One of the recommendations from the BRWG, which the Board 
considered, was to seat all board members not selected by the Nominating 
Committee, at an ICANN mid-term meeting. With some minor modifications to 
address the possibility that no mid-term meeting will occur, the Board believes 
that the BRWG recommendations are reasoned and geared toward ensuring smooth 
transition of Board members. The only comment received from the community was 
from ALAC and in support of the proposed Bylaws amendments. (See 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-article-vi8/msg00000.html "The 
Proposed Bylaws Amendments on Board Member Term Transitions are in alignment 
with ALAC philosophies related to transitions. The ALAC welcomes and support 
these amendments.")

The Board expects that this will have a positive public impact, in that 
typically new Board members will be seated at the conclusion of a Meeting, 
allowing for outgoing Board members to conclude their terms at the conclusion 
of that same Meeting. A transition period provides for a much smoother 
transition than changing terms in between Board meetings. The outgoing Board 
members will be able to complete a cycle of being briefed about and then 
addressing matters pending for discussion and decision at the next meeting. 
Likewise, the new Board members will be able to start afresh with the next 
issues at the beginning of the process.

The Board's decision may have a minimal financial impact on ICANN in that both 
outgoing and incoming Board members' travel and accommodations will be funded 
to the transition Meeting. As currently structured, however, additional funding 
would be required for no more than four Board members, and often less. It is 
unlikely that the potential amount of additional travel support that may be 
required will have an impact on the budget or the community. The Board sees no 
impact on the systemic security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.


3. Approval of Telnic RSEP request for release of numeric-only strings except 
for single-character labels

Whereas, Telnic submitted a Request pursuant to ICANN's Registry Services 
Evaluation Policy to amend the .TEL Registry Agreement to allow the allocation 
of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL.

Whereas, .TEL is one of the only two gTLDs currently not allowed to allocate 
numeric-only domain names.

Whereas, ICANN evaluated the proposed amendment to the .TEL Registry Agreement 
as a new registry service pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, 
did not identify any security, stability or competition issues, and posted an 
amendment for public comment and Board consideration (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14oct10-en.htm).

Whereas, the potential issues cited during the public comment period and by 
ICANN were adequately addressed by Telnic's responses.

Whereas, approving the proposal would augment the options available to 
registrants for registering names in .TEL.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.21), the amendment to allow allocation of numeric-only 
(excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL is approved, and the President 
and General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to 
implement the amendment.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.21
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

On 8 October 2010 Telnic submitted a request pursuant to ICANN's Registry 
Services Evaluation Policy to amend the .TEL Registry Agreement to allow the 
allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL. ICANN 
advised Telnic that an amendment to Appendices 6, Schedule of Reserved Names, 
and S, the Charter, would be necessary to implement the new service. ICANN 
determined the amendment was a substantial change to the Registry Agreement; 
therefore, Board consideration was necessary.

What are the proposals being considered?

The Board considered whether or not to approve the proposed amendment to allow 
the allocation of numeric-only (excluding single-digit) domain names in .TEL.

What Stakeholders or others were consulted?

The proposed amendment was subject to public comment from 14 October 2010 
through 13 November 2010; four comments were received, one was supportive, one 
did not address the merits of the proposal but made a suggestion to enhance it, 
one raised a potential issue, and the last one was the response from Telnic. 
ICANN asked Telnic to address the issues raised in the public comment forum and 
by ICANN, which Telnic and .TEL's delegated policy-making authority "the IPAG" 
did by submitting each one a letter to ICANN.

What concerns or issues were raised by community?

One commenter raised the following issue in the public comment forum: 1) 
whether the proposal might constitute a fundamental change to the TLD; and as a 
corollary, 2) whether the delegated policy-making authority was followed.

What significant materials did Board review?

While considering the proposed amendment, the Board reviewed the following 
materials: the request from Telnic for a new registry service 
<http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/telnic-request-08oct10-en.pdf>; the 
proposed amendment subject of the Board resolution 
<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/tel/proposed-tel-amendment-2-14oct10-en.pdf>;
 public comments related to the amendment 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tel-numeric-only-domains/>; a letter from .TEL's 
IPAG addressing the issues raised 
<http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/conroy-to-pritz-25nov10-en.pdf>; and a 
letter from Telnic addressing the issues raised 
<http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/mahdavi-to-schwartz-07jan11-en.pdf>.

What factors the Board Found to be Significant?

1.ICANN conducted the threshold security, stability and competition review on 
the proposed service pursuant to the RSEP, and did not identify any significant 
issues. Numeric-only names have been allowed in 14 gTLDs and several ccTLDs for 
years without harm to the security or stability of the Internet. From a purely 
technical point of view, there is no difference on what TLD allows the 
numeric-only names, therefore there is no new issue created by this proposal. 
ICANN advised Telnic that an amendment to Appendices 6, Schedule of Reserved 
Names, and S, the Charter, would be necessary to implement the new service.
2.The proposed amendment was available for public comment from 14 October 2010 
through 13 November 2010; four comments were received, one was supportive, one 
did not address the merits of the proposal but made a suggestion to enhance it, 
one raised a potential issue, and the last one was the response from Telnic. 
The comment period produced no clear consensus view on whether or not the 
amendment should be approved; each commenter provided input suggesting a 
different path, and some issues, described above, were noted.
3.The comment from Tim Ruiz (registrar GoDaddy.com, Inc.) suggested that the 
proposal might constitute a fundamental change to the purpose of the TLD. Ruiz 
further added that Telnic's promise not to allow numeric-only second-level 
registrations was a fundamental aspect of its application and a primary reason 
why .TEL was awarded to Telnic and not Pulver (another bidder for .TEL sTLD at 
the time). He concluded that this request should not be granted without 
requiring the rebidding of the .TEL sTLD itself, giving an opportunity for 
others to bid competitively.
4.Khashayar Mahdavi, CEO of Telnic Limited (.TEL registry) submitted a response 
to Tim Ruiz's comment. He stated that the proposal is not a fundamental change 
to the nature of .TEL, since the restriction on all-numeric strings has nothing 
to do with the nature of .TEL and was instead a measure put in place to address 
initial concerns about potential conflicts with ENUM. He stated that .TEL's 
purpose, as described in its Charter, is to serve the community of users who 
wish to use a TLD to store and publish their contact information in the DNS.
5.In response to ICANN's request, .TEL's policy-making body, IPAG provided 
additional information in a letter on 25 November 2010 explaining the policy 
development and approval process that was followed, in order to develop the 
RSEP request.
6.In the same letter, the Chairman of the IPAG, Lawrence Conroy, a 
well-recognized ENUM expert, explained why the proposal does not create a 
technical issue with ENUM. Conroy stated that "In this proposal, 
single-digitlabels (such as 1.tel or 4.tel) are reserved, rather than 
continuing to apply ablanket prohibition of all numeric labels (such as 
3663.tel); that is not neededor useful. By blocking all single digit labels, 
the root of an ENUM tree cannotbe placed directly in .tel. ENUM simply doesn't 
work with multi-digit labels.Telnic did not and does not intend to launch any 
alternative to ENUM, and hasa long standing agreement with ICANN that this will 
be the case for .tel." (the letter is included in the Annex).
7.In a letter from Telnic on 7 January 2011, in response to ICANN's request, 
Telnic explained why they believe the proposal would not cause confusion 
between a numeric-only name under .TEL and what might be considered to be a 
corresponding telephone number. Telnic noted the issue has not been raised 
before, that adequate tools exists to deal with instances of actual user 
confusion and/or misrepresentation, and that other TLDs already offer such 
names without restriction or problems. Lastly, Telnic remarked that should user 
confusion be identified as an actual problem; their IPAG is well qualified to 
address any issues that may arise.
8..TEL is one of the two gTLDs that is prohibited from allocating numeric-only 
domain names. By approving the proposal, .TEL would be in a better position to 
compete with the rest of the gTLDs in the market, which in turn, would provide 
more options to registrants.
Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

By approving the proposed amendment, the gTLD market will be more competitive 
by allowing .TEL to have a similar offering to the rest of the gTLDs, and more 
importantly, the registrants will have more options to choose for registration.

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

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts/ramifications of approving this amendment 
on the Strategic Plan, the Operating Plan, Budget, the community, or the public.

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

The proposed service related to the amendment was subject to the preliminary 
security and stability review pursuant to the Registry Services Evaluation 
Policy. ICANN did not identify any security, stability or competition issues: 
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/arias-to-shadrunov-14oct10-en.pdf.


4.Rationale documents
======================

a. Economic Studies – adopting rationale

Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the Board recognized that the overarching issue 
of the call for economic analysis, has been addressed by comprehensive expert 
consultation and analyses, including reports by CRA International, Dennis 
Carlton, Michael Katz and Greg Rosston. 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#2.

Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the Board acknowledged that with respect to the 
call for economic analysis, ICANN is in the process of receiving and reviewing 
public comment, and the Board will take into account that public comment 
including the advice of the GAC and directed staff to make change 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#2.

Whereas, all economic studies have confirmed the overall benefits of continuing 
to open the domain name space, in terms of enabling innovation, increasing 
choice and fostering a healthier competitive environment.

Whereas, the introduction of detailed rules and safeguard mechanisms via 
community comments in the successive versions of the draft applicant guidebook 
is the appropriate way to minimize the potential costs related to the 
implementation of this policy and optimize the use of the domain name space as 
a common global resource

Whereas, in order to avoid the opportunity costs of further delays, efforts 
should now be focused on finalizing those mechanisms, during the Board-GAC 
meeting in February and the community interaction at the Silicon Valley meeting 
in March.

Whereas the CEO shall continue to ensure that staff takes into account public 
comment on New gTLD Economic Study Phase II, as well as the advice of the GAC 
on the call for economic studies, and make revisions as appropriate to the 
Final Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas the CEO will carefully watch timing of implementation and fulfill 
ICANN's obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments that if and when new 
gTLDs have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that 
will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has 
promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as 
effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards 
put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.

Whereas, the Board has considered rationale for making this decision and is in 
the process of revising the rationale, which will be made part of the minutes 
from this meeting upon approval.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.22), the Board will not commission any further economic 
studies on new gTLDs in advance of making its decision on the launch of the new 
gTLD Program as the Board has determined that no further commissioned economic 
studies could better inform the Board's decision.

Rationale for Resolution 2011.01.25.22
Pursuant to the Board's resolution, the rationale as discussed during the 
meeting is being revised and will be posted as approved with the minutes of the 
meeting.

b. Cross-ownership - adopting rationale

Whereas, on 5 November 2010, the Board passed a resolution on the issue of 
cross-ownership between registries and registrars for the New gTLD Program. 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm.

Whereas, the Board has reviewed and considered a Proposed Rationale explaining 
the Board's decision.

RESOLVED (2010.01.25.23), the Board adopts the Proposed Rationale as the 
Rationale for the Board's decision on cross-ownership between registries and 
registrars in the New gTLD Program.

Rationale for Resolution 2010.01.25.23
The rationale discussed during the Board meeting is being revised and will be 
posted in draft form with the Preliminary Report of this meeting, and as 
approved by the Board with minutes of this meeting .


5.Board/GAC Consultations
=========================

a. New gTLDs
=============

Whereas, the ICANN Board and ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has 
scheduled a meeting from 28 February – 1 March 2011 in Brussels, Belgium 
("Meeting") to discuss a specific list of issues raised by the GAC relating to 
the New gTLD Program as follows ("Topics"):

■The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay 
fees;
■Procedures for the review of sensitive strings;
■Root Zone Scaling;
■Market and Economic Impacts;
■Registry – Registrar Separation;
■Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issues;
■Post-delegation disputes with governments;
■Use and protection of geographical names;
■Legal recourse for applicants;
■Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing 
countries;
■Law enforcement due diligence recommendations to amend the Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement as noted in the Brussels Communiqué; and
■The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be 
considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical 
names).
Whereas, the Meeting is not intended to be the consultation mandated by Article 
XI, section 2, paragraph 1(j) of the ICANN Bylaws.

Whereas, the Board wishes to trigger the Bylaws mandated consultation to take 
place during ICANN's Silicon Valley/San Francisco ("SV/SF") meeting scheduled 
for 13-18 March 2011.

Whereas, the Board intends for the Bylaws mandated consultation during the 
SV/SF meeting to be limited to the Topics discussed during the Meeting.

Resolved (2011.01.25.24), the ICANN Board hereby determines that it intends to 
progress toward launching the New gTLD Program, as close as practically 
possible to the form as set out in the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2011.01.25.25), the Board hereby determines to take actions on the 
Topics listed above that, at present, are not consistent with GAC advice.

Resolved (2011.01.25.26), the ICANN Board hereby triggers the consultation as 
provided for in ICANN Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), 
which shall take place on Thursday, 17 March 2011, during the ICANN SV/SF 
meeting.

Resolved (2011.01.25.27), the Bylaws-mandated consultation triggered above 
shall be limited to the Topics discussed at the Meeting for which the Board has 
not changed its position during or after the Meeting, and that remain not 
consistent with GAC advice.

Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.24 – 2011.01.25.27
Both the Board and the GAC have identified a need to have a consultation 
regarding the outstanding issues relating to the proposed launch of a new gTLD 
program. Both parties have agreed that this is the correct time to have this 
consultation. The Board will review all of the papers (including supporting 
materials and references) prepared for the meeting in consideration of GAC 
advice. Further, the Board has consulted with all stakeholders throughout the 
process for posting and revising each version of the Applicant Guidebook on 
issues identified by the GAC. The particular issues raised by the GAC that will 
be addressed at the Meeting are found in the GAC Cartagena Communique. 
http://gac.icann.org/press-release/gac-2010-communique-39.

Conducting the Meeting and the Bylaws Consultation between the Board and the 
GAC should have a positive impact on the community. It assures the entire 
community that the

Board is taking the comment process and its Bylaws requirements seriously and 
hopes to achieve as much consensus as possible.

There will be a significant fiscal impact on ICANN's budget as a result of the 
Meeting, which will require additional resources for travel, accommodations, 
meeting space and related expenses. This includes expenses for some GAC 
members, Board members, staff members and possibly other representatives. GAC 
members that are not funded to this Meeting may also feel some fiscal impact if 
they choose to attend the Meeting in person. There are no security, stability 
or resiliency issues relating to the DNS that will result from holding the 
Meeting or the Bylaws Consultation.

b. ICM
======

Whereas, at its meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, the Board noted its agreement 
with the staff's assessment of potential conflicts with GAC advice if the Board 
proceeds with its determination to enter a registry agreement with ICM Registry 
for the .XXX sTLD, and invoked the GAC consultation process. See 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#4.

Whereas, during the meeting in Cartagena, the GAC sought affirmative statements 
from the Board on its positions on ICM-related items.

Whereas, in an attempt to make a future consultation with the GAC as productive 
as possible, the Board position on all items of GAC advice are clearly set 
forth in an attached document.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.28), the Board directs staff to provide the GAC with the 
document setting forth the full Board position on items of GAC advice. The 
Board positions set forth correspond to the items identified for consultation 
at the Board's 28 October 2010 meeting.

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.29), the ICANN Board hereby establishes that the 
consultation on ICM as triggered in Cartagena and as provided for in ICANN 
Bylaws section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j), shall take place no later 
than Thursday, 17 March 2011.

Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.28 – 2011.01.25.29
As the Board has continued in its consideration of ICM's application for the 
.XXX sTLD, on 28 October 2010, the Board identified areas requiring 
consultation with the GAC prior to the Board entering a proposed Registry 
Agreement with ICM, as certain pieces of GAC advice may not be consistent with 
the Board's anticipated action. The Board's obligation to consult with the GAC 
arises out of Article XI, Section 2.1(j)-(k) of the ICANN Bylaws, and the Board 
formally invoked the consultation process at its meeting in Cartagena. In order 
to make the consultation as productive as possible, and to address the GAC's 
concern that it receive the Board's position on whether entering into a 
Registry Agreement with ICM would be inconsistent with GAC advice, the attached 
provides further detail and specific citations to support the Board's position 
on each piece of GAC advice.

The provision of a comprehensive Board position document is likely to result in 
a positive impact on the public. The position document provides detail and 
explanation that will benefit the entirety of the ICANN community as the 
discussions surrounding the anticipated approval of a Registry Agreement for 
the .XXX sTLD continue. The forwarding of this document does not pose any 
fiscal impact on ICANN, the community or the public, however there may be 
additional costs and expenses incurred in facilitating the consultation between 
the Board and the GAC, including travel and lodging expenses. The provision of 
the position document will not have any impact on the security, stability or 
resiliency of the DNS.


6. Report on AOC Reviews including ATRT Recommendations – Next Steps
=====================================================================

Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments required ICANN to organize a review – 
to be completed no later than December 31, 2010 – of its execution of 
commitments to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, 
accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its 
decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all 
stakeholders;

Whereas, as required by the Affirmation, the Accountability and Transparency 
Review Team (ATRT) submitted its final report to the Board on 31 December 2010 
and posted it for public comment through 14 February 2011;

Whereas, the Affirmation states that the Board will take action on the 
resulting recommendations within six months of receipt of the report;

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.30), the Board acknowledges the hard work and dedication 
of ICANN's ATRT members and thanks these volunteers for engaging in an 
intensive, public process, under challenging deadlines, to produce a 
comprehensive set of recommendations to improve ICANN;

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.31), the Board encourages the public to comment on the 
ATRT recommendations, and requests that all Supporting Organisations and 
Advisory Committees, and the Nominating Committee, provide the Board with 
initial input on the Report, by 14 February 2011, and that the Governmental 
Advisory Committee and the Nominating Committee work with the Board to consider 
actions on recommendations related to their organizations;

RESOLVED (2011.01.25.32), the Board requests that ICANN Staff provide the Board 
with a proposal for Board action on each recommendation and, where practicable, 
proposed, initial work plans and budgets for the recommendations, along with a 
status report on efforts related to all recommendations, by 21 February 2011, 
taking into account all input received.

Rationale for Resolutions 2011.01.25.30 – 2011.01.25.32
Adherence to the Affirmation of Commitments requires ICANN to undertake the 
creation of proposals for Board action on each recommendation arising out of 
Accountability and Transparency Review Team's (ATRT) Final Report. While this 
work is already underway, ICANN's commitment to accountability transparency is 
furthered through the transparent tracking of the process.

The community response to the ATRT's final recommendations is still being 
provided through the open public comment process. The creation of the proposal 
for Board action will have a budgetary impact on the organization. Significant 
staff resources will be devoted to the creation of the proposal, and the 
proposal itself will identify further budgetary considerations in the 
implementation of the recommendations. There is a potential that the financial 
resources of the organization may need to be reallocated to allow sufficient 
staff support to create a meaningful proposal.