[AfrICANN-discuss] Adopted ICANN Board Resolutions 25 September 2010

[Anne-Rachel Inné]

Adopted Board Resolutions

25 September 2010

Trondheim, Norway
 ------------------------------

1. *New gTLD Program
Budget<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#1>
*
2. *New gTLDs – Directions for Next Applicant
Guidebook<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2>
*
2.1. Geographic
Names<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.1>
2.2. New gTLD Applicant
Support<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.2>
2.3. Root Zone Scaling<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.3>
2.4. String Similarity<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.4>
2.5. Variant Management<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5>
2.6. Trademark Protection<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.6>
2.7. Role of the
Board<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.7>
2.8. Mitigating Malicious
Conduct<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.8>
2.9. GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection
Process<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.9>
2.10. Registry Agreement<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.10>
2.11. Vertical Integration<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.11>
3. *Data and Consumer Protection Working
Group<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#3>
*
4. *Board Global Relationships
Committee<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#4>
*
5. *Nominating Committee
Chair<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#5>
*
6. *March 2011 International Public
Meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#6>
*
7. *Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating
Officer<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#7>
*

------------------------------
1. New gTLD Program Budget

Whereas, the Board Finance Committee considered the New gTLD Deployment
Budget at its meeting on 20 September 2010 and unanimously recommended that
the Board adopt the Deployment Budget <link to be inserted when available>.

Whereas, the Board considered and discussed the New gTLD Application
Processing Budget at its 24-25 September 2010 retreat in Trondheim, Norway.

Resolved (2010.09.25.01), that the New gTLD Deployment Budget and the New
gTLD Application Processing Budgets are approved. The Deployment Budget is
to be released in order to enable the launch of the program on a timely
basis upon Board approval of the Applicant Guidebook. The Application
Processing budget should be released upon the approval of the final
Applicant Guidebook.
2. New gTLDs – Directions for Next Applicant Guidebook

Whereas, ICANN's primary mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the
global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure
the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.

Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include "depending on market mechanisms to
promote and sustain a competitive environment" where feasible and
appropriate, and "introducing and promoting competition in the registration
of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest."

Whereas, in June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO policy
recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>, and
directed staff to develop detailed implementation plans in communication
with the community.

Whereas, one of the goals of the New gTLD program is to establish a clear
and predictable process.

Whereas, ICANN seeks to mitigate risks and costs to ICANN and the broader
Internet community to the extent possible.

Whereas, meeting these goals require tradeoffs and balancing of competing
interests.

Whereas, in Brussels the ICANN Board resolved <
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#11> to dedicate
its retreat scheduled for 24-25 September for the consideration of all the
outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the New gTLD program.

Whereas, the Board held a retreat in Trondheim, Norway on 24-25 September
2010, and talked through the outstanding issues relating to the
implementation of the New gTLD program in order to identify potential ways
forward.

Whereas, the Board has identified certain directions to the CEO regarding
items for inclusion in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook
for the New gTLD program.

Whereas, the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook will be posted
for public comment, and ICANN will take into consideration all public
comments before making final decisions on all these remaining issues by
approving the final version of the Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas, on 23 September 2010, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
provided comments on version 4 of the draft Applicant Guidebook.

Resolved (2010.09.25.02), staff is directed to determine if the directions
indicated by the Board below are consistent with GAC comments, and recommend
any appropriate further action in light of the GAC's comments.

Resolved (2010.09.25.03), the Board gives the CEO the following directions
relating to the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook for new
gTLDs, which is intended to be posted for public comment before the ICANN
meeting in Cartagena in December 2010:
2.1 Geographic Names

Sub-national place names: Geographic names protection for ISO 3166-2 names
should not be expanded to include translations. Translations of ISO 3166-2
list entries can be protected through community objection process rather
than as geographic labels appearing on an authoritative list.

Continents and UN Regions: The definition of Continent or UN Regions in the
Guidebook should be expanded to include UNESCO’s regional classification
list which comprises: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and
North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.

Governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the
objection process just like any other objector; the objection process will
be run on a cost-recovery and loser-pays basis (so the costs of objection
processes in which governments prevail will be borne by applicants). Also,
the Board notes that the GAC proposal for free government objections is not
specific as to particular objection grounds or particular government
objectors (for example whether both national and local government objectors
would be covered).
2.2 New gTLD Applicant Support

Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education to
encourage participation across all regions, but any direct financial support
for applicant fees must come from sources outside of ICANN.

Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance and
organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional program
development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono in-kind
support, or financial assistance so that those needing assistance and those
willing to provide assistance can identify each other and work together.

Owing to the level of uncertainty associated with the launch of new gTLDs,
the fee levels currently in the Applicant Guidebook will be maintained for
all applicants.
2.3 Root Zone Scaling

Real-world experience in root zone scaling has been gained as a result of
the implementation of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs and the hard work of RSSAC and
SSAC members in tackling the underlying stability question. Staff is
directed to publish its analysis of the impact of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDN
deployment on the root zone so far.

Staff has also developed a model and a rationale for the maximum rate of
applications that can be processed over the next few years. Staff is
directed to publish this model and rationale and to seek Board support for
the judgments embodied in this model, thereby providing a firm basis for
limiting the rate of new delegations. Based on the discussions to date, this
limit is expected to be in the range of 1,000 new delegations per year, with
this number to be defined precisely in the publication.

The Board notes that an initial survey of root server operators' ability to
support this rate of growth has been conducted successfully, and directs
staff to revisit the estimate on a regular basis and consider whether a
further survey should be repeated .

Further, ICANN will periodically consult with root zone operators regarding
a procedure to define, monitor and publish data on root zone stability. As
part of the regular interaction with the root server operators, ICANN will
invite inputs from the root server operators and other interested parties
regarding any signs of stress in the system and advice as to what actions or
changes in process might be appropriate.

Finally, in the event that the number of applications exceeds the maximum
rate, an objective method for determining the order of application
processing that conforms to the limited delegation rate (not relying
primarily on time-stamping) will be defined in the Applicant Guidebook.
2.4 String Similarity

Similar strings should not be delegated through the New gTLD Program absent
an in-depth policy examination of the issues, including a clear, enforceable
set of operating rules to avoid possible user confusion. Community-suggested
modifications raise a complex set of policy issues and cannot be considered
as a straightforward implementation matter for the first round of
applications. Further policy work in this area is encouraged.
2.5 Variant Management

No changes will be made to the next version of the Applicant Guidebook with
respect to the handling of gTLDs containing variant characters. I.e., no
variants of gTLDs will be delegated through the New gTLD Program until
appropriate variant management solutions are developed.

The recent delegation of Chinese-language ccTLDs does not yet provide a
generally workable approach for gTLDs; there are serious limits to extending
this approach at this time. ICANN will coordinate efforts to develop
long-term policy and technical development work on these issues.

The Board notes that the following scenarios are possible while evaluating
variant gTLD strings:

   1. Applicant submits a gTLD string and indicates variants to this string.
   The applicant, if successful, will get the primary string. The indicated
   variant strings are noted for future reference, and these variant strings
   will not be delegated to the applicant; the applicant has no rights or claim
   to those strings. ICANN may independently determine which strings are
   variants of each other, and will not necessarily acknowledge that the
   applicant's list of purported variants be treated as variants under the
   process.
   2. Multiple applicants apply for strings that are variants of each other.
   They will be in contention.
   3. Applicant submits a request for a string and does not indicate that
   there are variants. ICANN will not identify variant strings unless scenario
   2 above occurs.

The CEO is directed to develop (in consultation with the board ES-WG) an
issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation,
possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant
characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the
development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing
variant characters IDNs. The analysis of needed work should identify the
appropriate venues (e.g., ICANN, IETF, language community, etc.) for
pursuing the necessary work. The report should be published for public
review.

The CEO is directed to produce for the board by the next Board meeting (28
October 2010):

   1. A Work plan for developing the issues report.
   2. An identification of the skills and capabilities needed by ICANN to
   complete the issues report and further develop ICANN's organizational
   ability to continue the strategic rollout of IDN TLDs.

2.6 Trademark Protection

Substantive Evaluation: The Applicant Guidebook will provide a clear
description of "substantive evaluation" at registration, and retain the
requirement for at least substantive review of marks to warrant protection
under sunrise services and utilization of the URS, both of which provide a
specific benefit to trademark holders. Specifically, evaluation, whether at
registration or by a validation service provider, is required on absolute
grounds AND use of the mark.

Substantive evaluation upon trademark registration has essentially three
requirements: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds - to ensure that the
applied for mark can in fact serve as a trademark; (ii) evaluation on
relative grounds - to determine if previously filed marks preclude the
registration; and (iii) evaluation of use - to ensure that the applied for
mark is in current use.

Substantive review by Trademark Clearinghouse validation service provider
shall require: (i) evaluation on absolute grounds; and (ii) evaluation of
use*.*

URS timing: In response to public comment, change the time to respond to a
complaint from 20 days to 14 days , with one opportunity for an extension of
seven days if there is a good faith basis for such an extension.

The Board notes that the suggestion for a globally-protected marks list
(GPML) was not adopted by the Board (in 2009), including for the following
reasons: it is difficult to develop objective global standards for
determining which marks would be included on such a GPML, such a list
arguably would create new rights not based in law for those trademark
holders, and it would create only marginal benefits because it would apply
only to a small number of names and only for identical matches of those
names.

The Board recognizes that additional policy development through the GNSO
could lead to further mechanisms for enhanced protection for trademarks.
2.7 Role of the Board

The Board intends to approve a standard process for staff to proceed to
contract execution and delegation on applications for new gTLDs where
certain parameters are met.

Examples of such parameters might include: (1) the application criteria were
met, (2) no material exceptions to the form agreement terms, and (3) an
independent confirmation that the process was followed.

The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually
consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would
be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result
of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the
inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application
terms and conditions.
2.8 Mitigating Malicious Conduct

While efforts to mitigate malicious conduct will continue, the
implementation work completed to date by the community and staff to address
the mitigation of malicious conduct issue is sufficient to proceed to launch
the first New gTLD application round. The remaining issues should not delay
launch with the following specific directives incorporated:

Background check: The background check should be clarified to provide detail
and specificity in response to comment. The specific reference to terrorism
will be removed (and the background check criteria will be revised). These
clarifications regarding the background check criteria and process shall be
included in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.

Orphan glue records: Current provisions in the guidebook require each
applicant to describe proposed measures for management and removal of orphan
glue records for names removed from the zone. This requirement should remain
in place, and will be adjusted if SSAC makes a new recommendation in its
report on this issue.

High Security Zone (HSTLD) concept: The HSTLD concept is a voluntary concept
being developed by a cross-stakeholder group including the financial
services industry for use in TLDs wishing to provide services on a
high-security basis. Thus, the development of the concept does not impact
the launch of the gTLD application process. Any publication of this concept
will be shared freely with other organizations that might be interested in
development of such a concept.

ICANN will not be certifying or enforcing the HSTLD concept; ICANN is
supporting the development of a reference standard for industry that others
may choose to use as a certification standard of their own. ICANN will not
endorse or govern the program, and does not wish to be liable for issues
arising from the use or non-use of the standard.
2.9 GNSO New gTLD Recommendation 6 Objection Process

The Board acknowledges receipt of the Rec6CWG report. This is a difficult
issue, and the work of the community in developing these recommendations is
appreciated. The Board has discussed this important issue for the past three
years.

The Board agrees that ultimate responsibility for the new gTLD program rests
with the Board. The Board, however, wishes to rely on the determinations of
experts regarding these issues.

The Board will accept the Rec6 CWG recommendations that are not inconsistent
with the existing process, as this can be achieved before the opening of the
first gTLD application round, and will work to resolve any inconsistencies.
Staff will consult with the Board for further guidance as required.
2.10 Registry Agreement

Required Notice and consent for increased or premium renewal prices: The
current provision is necessary to protect registrants from predatory pricing
upon renewals and the term should be retained.

Limitation of liability: The limitation of liability should remain as is.
The remedies for registry operator are limited but appropriate given that
ICANN is a non-profit entity that cannot afford to be open to unlimited
liability.

Collection of variable transaction fee from registries if registrars decline
to pay ICANN directly: The provision for the pass-through of fees is
necessary to ensure that ICANN receives adequate funding in the event that
ICANN accredited registrars (as a group) fail to approve the variable
accreditation fees and should remain in the agreement.

Searchable Whois: Refer to the Board Data Consumer Protection Working Group
to study issues and provide information to the Board relating to access and
privacy to develop recommendations for possible inclusion in the forthcoming
version of the applicant guidebook.

Indemnification of ICANN: The indemnification right should remain. ICANN
staff has invited the Registry Stakeholder Group to propose language more
precisely defining the exceptions to registry operator’s indemnification
obligations for inclusion in the next version of the Draft Registry
Agreement, and such a proposal should be considered for inclusion if
received in a timely fashion.
2.11 Vertical Integration

The Board will send a letter to the GNSO requesting that the GNSO send to
the Board, by no later than 8 October 2010, a letter (a) indicating that no
consensus on vertical integration issues has been reached to date, or (b)
indicating its documented consensus position. If no response is received by
8 October 2010, then the Board will deem lack of consensus and make
determinations around these issues as necessary. At the time a policy
conclusion is reached by the GNSO, it can be included in the applicant
guidebook for future application rounds.
3. Data and Consumer Protection Working Group

Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make
recommendations to the Board regarding establishment and membership of a
working group to address data and consumer protection issues (DCP-WG).

Whereas the BGC has recommended the establishment and membership of the
DCP-WG.

Resolved (2010.09.25.04), the Board hereby establishes the DCP-WG, with its
membership as follows: Harald Alvestrand, Dennis Jennings (Chair), Mike
Silber, Bruce Tonkin, and Ram Mohan (non-voting member).
4. Board Global Relationships Committee

Whereas, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to make
recommendations to the Board regarding the membership of a Board Global
Relationships Committee (BGRC).

Whereas the BGC has recommend the membership of the BGRC.

Resolved (2010.09.25.05), the Board hereby sets the membership for the BGRC
as follows: Peter Dengate-Thrush (chair), George
Sadowskybegin_of_the_skype_highlighting
     end_of_the_skype_highlighting, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Katim Touray,
Kuo-Wei Wu, Vanda Scartezini (non-voting member).
5. Nominating Committee Chair

Whereas the Board Governance Committee is tasked each year with recommending
to the Board a candidate to serve as the Nominating Committee (“NomCom”)
Chair.

Whereas the BGC called for expressions of interest from all who would be
interested in serving as the 2010-2011 NomCom Chair.

Whereas the BGC considered and discussed all legitimate expressions of
interest.

Whereas the BGC recommends that the Board appoint Adam Peake as the
2010-2011 NomCom Chair.

Resolved (2010.09.25.06), that Adam Peake is appointed as Chair of the
2010-2011 NomCom, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting
in 2011, or until the Chair’s earlier resignation, removal, or other
disqualification from service.
6. March 2011 International Public Meeting

Whereas, the BFC reviewed the budget for the North America ICANN meeting,
compared it to prior meeting budgets, and recommend that the Board approve
the budget not to exceed $1.941 million.

Resolved (2010.09.25.07), the Board approves San Francisco, California as
the location of the ICANN 2011 North America Meeting to be held from 13-18
March 2011, with a budget not to exceed US$1.941M.
7. Appointment of Akram Atallah as Chief Operating Officer

Whereas, the attraction and retention of high calibre staff is essential to
ICANN’s operations and ICANN desires to ensure competitive compensation for
staff.

Whereas, Akram Atallah has been identified through a vigorous global search
and senior management agrees that he is the right candidate to fill the role
of Chief Operating Officer.

Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation
consultants indicates that the base compensation for a Chief Operating
Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted]
at the 75th percentile.

Whereas, independent market data provided by the outside compensation
consultants indicates that the overall compensation for a Chief Operating
Officer would fall between [redacted] at the 50th percentile and [redacted]
at the 75th percentile. [redacted]

Whereas, the Compensation Committee has recommended that the Board appoint
Akram Atallah as the Chief Operating Officer and approve the suggested
compensation package.

Resolved (2010.09.25.08), the Board hereby appoints Akram Atallah as an
Officer of the Company in the position of Chief Operating Officer effective
20 September 2010.

Resolved (2010.09.25.09), the Board authorizes a starting compensation
package for Akram Atallah to consist of: (i) a base salary of $350,000 USD
per year; (ii) a bonus opportunity of 30% of base salary per year to be paid
in a manner consistent with other U.S. based staff and in accordance with
the company’s bonus program; and (iii) the standard benefit programs made
available to all other regular full time U.S. based staff.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20100927/fcf93c44/attachment-0001.htm