ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011


Thanks for the update, Bruce. 
 
The NCSG has a couple of questions regarding the upcoming Board-GAC
meeting; I'm not sure if you or ICANN staff are the folks to address
them to, but as we think the GNSO community might also have an interest
in the answers I'm posting them here:
 
(1) With respect to the Topics to be discussed at the meeting, the
Board's resolution in Cartagena noted that issues such as trademark
protection, root zone scaling and mitigating malicious conduct have been
sufficiently addressed and "substantially reflect the negotiated
position of the ICANN community". The resolution also goes on to state
that "ICANN will take into consideration public comment including the
advice of the GAC". Is it the Board's intention to continue discussion
in Brussels over these issues despite the December resolution, given
that the GAC communique seems to treat them as open issues? If so, how
does the Board intend to draw the line between re-opening the issues and
closing remaining specific concerns?
 
(2) With respect to the "subject matter experts" and non-ICANN Board or
staff members who will be at the Brussels meeting (presumably at ICANN's
expense), how and when will these people be identified? Will the
community be consulted as to who they should be?
 
Thanks very much,
Mary 

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 1/28/2011 6:54 AM
Subject: [council] Adopted Board Resolutions, 25 January 2011

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 areceived, 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 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 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.



As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>