[council] ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 06:09:33 -0800
- Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac3ucu4qH3O4bFVHR3S5Z2jvtLEMeQ==
- Thread-topic: ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List
ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List
8 January 2013
21 December 2012
The attached ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List sets out what the Board heard
in Toronto where Board action is required and what the Board plans to do. In
the future, it is intended that an Action List like this one will be published
no later than 1 month after each meeting. Just prior to the following meeting
an updated version of the Action List will be published setting out what the
Board has done with respect to each item below.
The production of an Action List is a relatively new practice and we are still
working on the timings, logistics and processes required for it to be effective
and efficient. Your feedback is welcomed.
What we heard where action is needed
What We've Done
Suggestion to establish an ICANN mailing list for those in the ICANN community
who will be at WCIT (possibly widen list to I*).
Direct the staff to set up mailing list.
Do not proceed with 2013-2016 Strategic Plan. A new procedure is coming and it
needs to ensure there are mechanisms for hearing input so the Community feels
The Board has been discussing this since its September board workshop in Los
Angeles and plans to continue to work on it and report back as soon as
possible. The Board recognizes that any strategic planning framework will need
to include the results of the African Strategic Working Group.
The Board heard several matters from the GAC, which it expects will be
addressed in the GAC Communiqué, but specifically notes that the timing of the
Board's response to the GAC Communiqué was sub-optimal.
The Board acknowledges the problem and will endeavor to put in place a
mechanism to ensure timely arrival of its response.
WHOIS Review Report
There is no consensus on the actions that should follow the WHOIS Review.
The Board will discuss the WHOIS Review during its Board meeting this afternoon.
Completed. The Board accepted the WHOIS Review Team's recommendations and
additionally initiated a review of the purpose and structure of WHOIS.
Patents in Policy Processes
Various parts of the GNSO have indicated that a future policy in this area may
be needed and that we should address it before it becomes a concern.
Board to request "expert advice" on this topic and then put out the recommended
approach for public comment to be adopted by the Board.
Article 29 Working Party Letter
Many concerns were expressed.
The letter will be taken into account in finalizing the negotiations on the RAA.
JAS applications need to be given priority in this round and improved in the
Treatment during this round is in the hands of the CEO and the new gTLD
Committee. Treatment in future rounds will be taken up when the next round is
New gTLDs - General implementation issues:
-URS IDN Variant
-BC and IPC requirements
-Registry services readiness
Numerous comments. Concern expressed that we are not ready in some areas and
will not be ready in time.
The Board is instructing the CEO to focus his full attention and energy on all
implementation actions necessary to keep the program on track.
New gTLD Funds
Document the total amount borrowed from the
reserve fund to finance the pre-revenue period of the new gTLD program, and
document the intended repayment schedule.
We will do so.
Generally positive feedback that IDN's should have priority; a number of
suggestions were made to give preference to various subgroups in association
with the Prioritization Draw.
The new gTLD Committee will consider all feedback from this meeting and the
comment period. All suggestions are being considered by and will be decided by
the CEO and the new gTLD Committee.
Rights Protection in New gTLDs
A handful of concerns were raised regarding the rights protection mechanism(s).
The IPC and business constituencies have reached consensus on further
mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection. They agreed to socialize these to
the rest of the GNSO.
All of these are in the hands of the CEO and the new gTLD Committee.
The Board looks forward to receiving input on these suggestions from the GNSO.
There are a significant number of issues with regard to the Trademark
Clearinghouse both from an implementation and cost point of view.
Interest in whether the final draft agreement and the signed agreement for the
trademark clearinghouse will be made public.
The rights to the trademark clearinghouse database must remain with ICANN.
The Board supports the CEO's decision to make solving these issues his top
Yes, it will be made public.
The rights will remain with ICANN.
Submission of Public Forum Topics
Public Forum questions submitted in advance should include a couple of hinting
sentences so everyone can be prepared.
Forwarded to staff and the Public Participation Committee (PPC) for
1) Various parts of the GNSO expressed the belief that it would assist the new
gTLD process if ICANN facilitated an intersessional meeting for the GAC; 2) The
registry and registrar constituency and the NTAG believe that ICANN should
support an intersessional meeting for them.
The Board will consider any formal requests received for these intersessional
Glen de Saint Géry