<div id="doctitle">
<p class="title">Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi</p>
<p class="docdate">12 March 2010</p>
</div>
<ol>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1">Consent
Agenda</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#2">President's
Report</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#3">Affirmation
of Commitments Reviews – Status Report</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#4">New
gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of Expressions
of Interest Proposal</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5">New
gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#6">New
gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
Suspension System</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#7">New
gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure
(PDDRP) - Legal Rights</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#8">New
gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation
Procedure (RRDRP) – Community</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#9">New
gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#10">IDN
Variants</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#11">New
gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#12">Formation
of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#13">Principles
for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#14">Framework
for FY11 Operating Plan</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#15">Consideration
of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#16">Approval
of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#17">Board
acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 10-1</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#18">Adoption
of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 10-1</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#19">BGC
Recommendation on Board Training Program</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20">Support
for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#21">Other
Business</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#22">Thanks
to Departing ccNSO Volunteers</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#23">Thanks
to Sponsors</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#24">Thanks
to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#25">Thanks
to Local Hosts</a> </strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#26">Thanks
to Meeting Participants</a> </strong></li>
</ol>
<a name="1" id="1"></a><h3>
</h3><h3>1. Consent Agenda </h3>
<p>Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby
approved:</p>
<blockquote>
<h3>1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting </h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of
the 4 February 2010 Board Meeting.</p>
<h3>1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting </h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of
the 19 February 2010 Board Meeting.</p>
<h3>1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board </h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Committees have reported their activities in
Nairobi at a public session;</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.03), reports of the Audit Committee of the
Board, Board Governance Committee, Finance Committee of the Board, IANA
Committee of the Board, Public Participation Committee of the Board,
Risk Committee of the Board and the Structural Improvement Committee are
received.</p>
<h3>1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor </h3>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws in Article XVI, Section 3
<<a href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm</a>>, requires that after the
end of the fiscal year, the books of ICANN must be audited by certified
public accountants. The Bylaws also state that the appointment of the
fiscal auditors shall be the responsibility of the Board;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Audit Committee of the Board discussed requirements
and best practices for Audit Partner rotation;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Chair of the Board Audit Committee has received a
proposal from Moss Adams LLP to be engaged as the auditor for the fiscal
year ending 30 June 2010, with the proviso that a new Audit Partner be
assigned to the ICANN engagement; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has reviewed the proposed
engagement letter and professional services agreement and recommends to
the Board that ICANN enter into this engagement.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.04), the Board authorizes the Chief Executive
Officer to engage Moss Adams LLP as the auditors for the financial
statements for the fiscal year ending 30 June 2010.</p>
<h3>1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group </h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Review Working Group suggested that the
Structural Improvements Committee consider a review of the Technical
Liaison Group (TLG), to complement the review of the ICANN Board of
Directors;</p>
<p>Whereas, there are no specific Bylaws provisions for the
performance of the review of the TLG, as the TLG cannot be identified as
a Supporting Organization or an Advisory Committee of ICANN, which are
subject to review according to Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN Bylaws;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 21
January 2010 meeting agreed to progress the idea of conducting a review
focused on the effectiveness of the TLG, and asked staff to present
proposals for processes to be adopted in order to perform this review;
and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 6 March
2010 meeting considered that due to the relatively low complexity of the
review, it can be conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group,
with the assistance of ICANN staff, in a relatively short period of time
with minimal budget implications.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.05), the Board authorizes the review of the
Technical Liaison Group.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.06), that this review will aim: (i) to
understand whether the TLG arrangements set forth in Article XI-A,
Section 2 of the Bylaws, to ‘connect the Board with appropriate sources
of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's
activities,' are still effective and sufficient; (ii) to understand
whether the TLG has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and
(iii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable
to improve the TLG's effectiveness.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.07), that the review of the TLG will be
conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group and assisted by ICANN
staff.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.08), that the SIC is authorized to establish a
TLG review Working Group and adopt all the necessary measures to
perform the review, in consultation with the community, and to report to
the Board through the SIC on the final findings and recommendations.</p>
<h3>1.6 Thanks to and dissolution of: Board review Working Group,
Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the Security
and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) review Working Group </h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee
review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group have
delivered to the Structural Improvements Committee their final reports
of activity, which contain conclusions and recommendations for enhancing
the effectiveness of these structures;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee
review finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group,
have fulfilled the tasks assigned to them at the time of their
establishment, and they can now be dissolved;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board agrees with the Structural Improvements
Committee on its proposal to thank the Chairs and Members of these
Working Groups for their commitment and ability to fulfill the tasks
assigned to them; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee will now provide the
Board with a set of suggested actions to address the conclusions and
recommendations of the final reports of these three Working Groups;</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.09), the Board receives the final reports of
the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review
finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.10), the Board thanks the Chairs and Members
of these review Working Groups for their commitment and ability to
fulfill their task:</p>
<ul>
<li>Board review Working Group: Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Amadeu
Abril, Steve Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Rita Rodin
Johnston and Jean-Jacques Subrenat.</li>
<li>NomCom finalization review Working Group: Thomas Roessler
(Chair), Alejandro Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein and George
Sadowsky (non-voting).</li>
<li>SSAC review Working Group: Dennis Jennings (Chair), Robert
Blokzijl, Reinhard Scholl, and Suzanne Woolf.</li>
</ul>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.11), the Board dissolves the Board review
Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working
Group and the SSAC review Working Group.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.12), the Board directs the Structural
Improvements Committee to present a set of suggested actions for
approval at the June 2010 Board meeting, so as to address the
conclusions and recommendations formulated in the final reports of these
Working Groups.</p>
<h3>1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit
Reconfirmation </h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board has determined that existing GNSO Constituencies
should regularly re-confirm their status as organizations operating
consistently with the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, openness,
fairness and representativeness;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board asked existing GNSO Constituencies to seek Board
reconfirmation prior to the Nairobi meeting; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO Council Work Team developing recommendations for
GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholders is still progressing in its work,
and completion of those efforts will likely produce final charters that
are much more effective in linking GNSO-structure operations to the
ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, fairness, openness and
representativeness.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.13), the Board extends the timetable for those
reconfirmation submissions to the ICANN International meeting in
Brussels, Belgium.</p>
</blockquote>
<a name="2" id="2"></a><h3>2. President's Report </h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)</p>
<a name="3" id="3"></a>
<h3>3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report </h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)</p>
<a name="4" id="4"></a>
<h3>4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of
Expressions of Interest Proposal </h3>
<p>Whereas the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN
staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal “expressions of
interest”, and provide a plan for Board consideration in December 2009,
including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a proposed
action;</p>
<p>Whereas ICANN staff presented an analysis of the potential benefits
of an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and developed a preliminary
EOI process model for ICANN Board discussion;</p>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Board consideration of the model was deferred
until the Nairobi meeting to encourage full debate on aspects of the
proposed EOI model, consistent with advice from the GAC in its letter to
ICANN dated 26 January 2010;</p>
<p>Whereas ICANN staff has received substantial public comment on the
EOI proposal, including two public comment sessions and at the public
forum at the 37 th International Meeting in Nairobi, with thoughtful and
substantial contributions regarding proceeding with an EOI and the
proposed form of the EOI, raising concerns both in support of an in
opposition to proceeding with the EOI;</p>
<p>Whereas, on 10 March 2010 the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
issued the “GAC Communiqué – Nairobi” questioning the benefits of
pursuing further a separate EOI as it could distract attention and
resources from finalizing the New gTLD Program;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has carefully considered all public comments
received on the EOI;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has determined that the potential benefits of
proceeding with an EOI were outweighed by the costs of potential delay
to the New gTLD Program, the lack of certainty about the date when the
overarching issues would be resolved to the satisfaction of the Board,
the consequential difficulty of synchronizing the launch of the New gTLD
Program with the proposed EOI, and preferring to focus staff resources
on resolving the remaining issues; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in
the New gTLD Program continue to progress.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.14) the Board withdraws the Expressions of
Interest proposal from consideration.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.15) the Board directs the CEO to continue to
work towards the launch of the New gTLD Program.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.16) the Board thanks the community for all of
its work on the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the
collaborative community work to initiate the Board's consideration of
the proposal.</p>
<a name="5" id="5"></a>
<h3>5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration </h3>
<p>Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of
the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of
data, and more;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry
participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices
related to ownership integration or non-integration;\</p>
<p>Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to
emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure
could affect consumer data protection;</p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the
issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an
environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new
gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and</p>
<p>Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to
registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process,
there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services
and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the
GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD
program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as
part of the New gTLD Program.</p>
<a name="6" id="6"></a>
<h3>6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform
Rapid Suspension System </h3>
<p>Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that trademark
protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD
Program, the Board called for the creation of a community-lead
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop rights protection
mechanisms;</p>
<p>Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP Clearinghouse and a
Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) that were subject to public
comment;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board asked the Generic Names Supporting Organization
(GNSO) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposals to determine
whether they are consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the
introduction of new gTLDs, and appropriate and effective options for
achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives;</p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO established the Special Trademark Issue Review Team
(STI) to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposal in response to the
Board's request;</p>
<p>Whereas the GNSO's STI developed endorsements and revisions for the
Clearinghouse and URS, which the GNSO unanimously approved and then
posted for public comment;</p>
<p>Whereas ICANN considered public comment and revised the Clearinghouse
and URS proposals to reflect the GNSO-STI model, making few adjustments
in keeping with public comment received on the GNSO-STI proposal;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board believes that the current proposals reflect the
very thoughtful public comments received and the tireless good work
conducted by both the IRT and the GNSO-STI; and</p>
<p>Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the
Board supports the substantive content of the Clearinghouse and URS
proposals that were posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment and
expects that they will be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant
Guidebook.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.19), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments
on the Clearinghouse proposal and develop a final version to be included
in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.20), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments
on the URS proposal and develop a final version to be included in
version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.21), the Board greatly appreciates all of the
hard work conducted by the IRT, and more recently by the GNSO-STI, as
well as the public in assisting ICANN with the development of both the
Clearinghouse and URS proposals in the furtherance of trademark
protection.</p>
<a name="7" id="7"></a>
<h3>7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution
Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights </h3>
<p>Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that Trademark
Protection needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD
Program, the Board called for the creation of an Implementation
Recommendation Team (IRT) to develop some rights protection mechanisms;</p>
<p>Whereas, the IRT's work included a proposal for a Post Delegation
Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP), that was posted for public comment
to provide an additional rights protection mechanism in the new gTLD
process;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN considered public comment, revised the PDDRP, and the
Board directed that it be included in version 3 of the Applicant
Guidebook; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board approves the concept of a PDDRP, which should be
included in the New gTLD Program as another avenue of trademark
protection; in light of additional public comments received, ICANN
further revised the PDDRP, which is currently posted for another round
of public comments.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.22), ICANN should take the remaining public
comment from the community and synthesize those comments, as
appropriate, into a final draft PDDRP, ensuring that the varying
interests of the community are considered, and include the final draft
in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.23), the Board greatly appreciates the
cooperation, involvement and assistance the community has provided and
continues to offer to assist in developing a robust and productive PDDRP
as another trademark protection mechanism within the New gTLD Program
and looks forward to this collaboration with the community producing
further improvements.</p>
<a name="8" id="8"></a>
<h3>8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute
Delegation Procedure (RRDRP) – Community </h3>
<p>Whereas, the New gTLD recommendations from the GNSO included an
implementation guideline that suggested that "a claim to support a
community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that
application";</p>
<p>Whereas, based on the GNSO's recommendation, staff has developed a
string contention resolution process that can in some cases grant
priority to an applicant endorsed by a delineated and substantial
community with a strong nexus to the applied-for string, so long as the
applicant agrees to implement and enforce registration restrictions in
the gTLD;</p>
<p>Whereas, a community-based gTLD's registration restrictions could
include not only restrictions on who can register in a gTLD, but also
name selection, content and use rules consistent with the articulated
community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD;</p>
<p>Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider
would allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding
enforcement of community restrictions; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure
(RRDRP) was published for public comment on 31 May 2009 < <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm</a>
>, along with an explanatory memorandum < <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf</a>
> describing the procedure and the rationale for incorporating it
into the New gTLD Program. The draft procedure has received little
public comment since, and no comment indicating that it should not be
implemented.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.24), ICANN shall publish a final draft version
of the RRDRP in Draft Applicant Guidebook 4.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.25), ICANN shall also consider whether this or a
similar post-delegation dispute resolution procedure could be
implemented for use by government-supported TLD operators where the
government withdraws its support of the TLD.</p>
<a name="9" id="9"></a>
<h3>9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement </h3>
<p>Whereas public comment has indicated that the requirement for gTLD
strings to be at least three characters would limit the utility of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) gTLDs in some regions of the world;</p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO IDN Working Group previously recommended that
applications for fewer than 3-character gTLDs were allowed in the gTLD
program, based on a case-by-case evaluation;</p>
<p>Whereas an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as a
result of discussion during the meeting in Sydney, Australia, to assist
in implementation of a set of rules that could be employed to allocate
IDN strings of fewer than three characters where appropriate;</p>
<p>Whereas, the team completed its work and published a recommendation
for relaxing the three-character requirement in a report for public
comment that included specific requirements for when 2-character gTLDs
can be delegated, and deferred the notion of 1-character gTLDs pending
policy issues;</p>
<p>Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received;
and</p>
<p>Whereas, a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the
New gTLD Program has also been posted for public comment.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.26), ICANN shall take into account remaining
public comments on the proposed model and develop a final proposal to be
included in draft version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p>Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the
Board supports the substantive content of the model that was posted on
15 February 2010 for public comment and expects that it will be included
in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.27), ICANN thanks those members of the community
who have devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of
trademark rights protection.</p>
<a name="10" id="10"></a>
<h3>10. IDN Variants </h3>
<p>Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are
affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs;</p>
<p>Whereas, an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as
a result of discussions at the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, to
make recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level;</p>
<p>Whereas, the IDN Implementation Support Team has completed its work
and published its recommendations in a report for public comment and
recommends that ICANN is to study the usability of the DNAME resource
record as part of a supported mechanism for managing TLD strings
containing variants;</p>
<p>Whereas the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is
consistent with the Team's recommendations;</p>
<p>Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN
Implementation Support Team for allocation/reservation of desired
variant TLDs, pending identification of a mechanism for delegation and
management of the variant TLDs in the New gTLD Program, has been posted
for public comment.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.28), ICANN shall take into account remaining
public comments on the proposed model and based on such comments develop
a proposal to be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant
Guidebook;.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.29), the Board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake a
study on the usability of the DNAME resource record as a part of a
supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.30), ICANN thanks those members of the community
who have devoted their time and energy to the work on these issues, and
urges the community to collaborate on the ongoing testing of variant
mechanisms.</p>
<a name="11" id="11"></a>
<h3>11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan </h3>
<p>Whereas, New gTLD Program communications activities began in June
2008 with the policy approval during ICANN's Meeting in Paris;</p>
<p>Whereas, staff has provided regular program updates to the community
and Board, has continued to publish critical information in six
languages, and has responded to public comments in a timely and
transparent way;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan < <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf</a>
> that supports the New gTLD Program implementation plan and
considers a full range of global audiences;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN recognizes that the communications plan is a living
document, and should be flexible to accommodate evolving circumstances
and attend to the needs of specific regions and audiences around the
world;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN recognizes that one of the main goals of the
communications plan is to inform potential applicants around the world
about the opportunities afforded by new gTLDs; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has listened to the community input about
intensifying communications activities in various regions around the
world.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.31), that ICANN will implement a formal launch
of communications activities for the New gTLD Program, tailored
according to the relevant program phases and developments, recognizing
that the plan will need to be flexible to respond to unforeseen
circumstances and adapt to the needs of regional audiences.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.32), that ICANN will continue to take into
account the advice of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory
committees in the New gTLD Program communication activities. Starting at
ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels, ICANN will work with
the SOs and ACs to leverage the networks and design the timeline around
the actual launch.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.33), the CEO is directed to begin the formal
communications plan for the New gTLD Program when the overarching issues
are resolved to the satisfaction of the Board.</p>
<a name="12" id="12"></a>
<h3>12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support </h3>
<p>Whereas, on 16 November 2009 ICANN launched the IDN Fast Track
process pursuant to the Board's resolution on 30 October 2009;</p>
<p>Whereas, in the implementation of the process, staff has identified
an issue relating to instances in the Fast Track Process where more than
one official language or script exists within a country/territory, and
where requests are for multiple corresponding strings that are
considered equivalent, so that users of the community accessing domains
under all versions of the string expect that each of them will resolve
to the same address;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board requested Ram Mohan and Harald Alvestrand to
establish a Working Group as a matter of urgency to address this topic,
and invite interested Board members to participate.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.34), that an Equivalent Strings Support Board
Working Group (ES-WG) is established to review the issues, develop a
recommendation of a framework for resolution and principles to guide
staff implementation of the framework, and remain available for
consultation during staff's implementation work.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.35), that the Working Group is comprised as
follows: Dennis Jennings, Chair; Harald Alvestrand; Rod Beckstrom; Steve
Crocker; Rita Rodin Johnston; Ram Mohan; Thomas Narten, Jean-Jacques
Subrenat and Suzanne Woolf.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.36), that the Working Group's mandate will end
at the conclusion of the Board's 2010 Annual General Meeting.</p>
<a name="13" id="13"></a>
<h3>13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast
Track Process </h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process on 16
November 2009 as set forth in the Board resolution of 30 October 2009;</p>
<p>Whereas, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in Sydney,
Board members convened the Implementation Support Team to provide
recommendations on how to manage IDN ccTLD strings;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Fast Track Final Implementation Plan states that the
limitation on the number of IDN ccTLDs is one per official language or
script per country, and defines the policy under which requests are
processed;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in
Nairobi, requested Harald Alvestrand and Ram Mohan to convene a working
group, the Equivalent Strings Support Working Group (ES-WG) to address
instances in the Fast Track Process where more than one official
language or script exists within a country/territory, and where requests
are for multiple corresponding strings that are considered equivalent,
so that users of the community accessing domains under all versions of
the string expect that each of them will resolve to the same address
(hereafter referred to as “Synchronized IDN ccTLDs”).</p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG determined that developing a formal procedure to
accept IDN ccTLD Fast Track requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings
is appropriate and solves a real problem for the people in the community
ICANN is seeking to serve by launching IDN ccTLDs;</p>
<p>Whereas, there appears to be general community consensus, and the
ES-WG concurs, that any request for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must
solve a significant problem for the communities that use the scripts, to
be confirmed with sufficient due diligence by Staff, the details to be
defined in an ES Implementation Plan;</p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG notes that all existing Fast Track requirements
and rules apply for string selection and validation of the synchronized
IDN ccTLD strings, and that DNS security and stability, as well as
usability concerns, must be taken into account;</p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that requests for synchronized IDN
ccTLD strings must be accompanied by adequate and verifiable procedures
to enable convergence at every level of the domain named by the TLD
following criteria established in the ES Implementation Plan, and to
take immediate steps to remove any divergence should it occur; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that if an improved technical standard
for the delegation and management of Synchronized IDN ccTLDs is arrived
at, and is applicable for such delegations, IDN ccTLD managers should
migrate to that standard in a safe, stable and timely manner.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.37), that pursuant to the ES-WG recommendations,
the Board approves the principles identified above for the evaluation
of synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.38), the CEO is directed to have prepared an ES
Implementation Plan for the Fast Track evaluation of synchronized IDN
ccTLDs using the ES-WG's principles as a framework.</p>
<a name="14" id="14"></a>
<h3>14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan </h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)</p>
<a name="15" id="15"></a>
<h3>15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM
Registry v. ICANN </h3>
<p>Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM
Registry, Inc. filed an application for an Independent Review
challenging ICANN's denial of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;</p>
<p>Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's
IRP;</p>
<p>Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was
constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out
their respective positions on the matter;</p>
<p>Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held
in Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and
witness testimony;</p>
<p>Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority
Declaration with findings;</p>
<p>Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's
Bylaws, "[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the IRP
Panel Declaration at the Board's next meeting";</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration
throughout the week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed various
paths toward conclusion; and</p>
<p>Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years
following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes to
create a transparent set of process options which can be published for
public comment.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent
Review Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws
requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths
regarding ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General
Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further
consideration.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General
Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM matter
for public comment within 14 days, which will enable the community to
provide input on the Board processes. The report will be posted for
public comment for no less than 45 days, which will enable the Board to
consider the possible process options no later than ICANN's 38 th
International Meeting in Brussels.</p>
<a name="16" id="16"></a>
<h3>16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December
2010 </h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2010 in the
Latin America region;</p>
<p>Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as
host for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;</p>
<p>Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals
received; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board
approve the budget for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting as proposed
on 6 March 2010, without reference to a specific location.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.42), the CEO is authorized to negotiate with
those that submitted proposals to host the ICANN 2010 Latin America
International Meeting, and make a recommendation to the Board for
approval at an upcoming ICANN Board meeting.</p>
<a name="17" id="17"></a>
<h3>17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration
Request 10-1 </h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.43) the Board accepts the determination of the
BGC in response to the Reconsideration Request that the preliminary
report was posted less than ten (10) hours later than the time required
by the Bylaws.</p>
<a name="18" id="18"></a>
<h3>18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration
Request 10-1 </h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) presented a
recommendation in response to Reconsideration Request 10-1, recommending
a change to the Bylaws calling for posting the Board approved
resolutions within two (2) business days after the conclusion of each
Board meeting and the preliminary report within seven (7) business days
after the conclusion of each Board meeting; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Board has considered the BGC's recommendation, and
has determined that providing for earlier public access to the
resolutions would be beneficial and is in keeping with ICANN's practices
relating to accountability and transparency.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.44), the ICANN Board hereby adopts the
recommendation of the Board Governance Committee in relation to the
timing of posting preliminary reports and agrees that providing earlier
public access to resolutions is an advancement in ICANN's practices
relating to accountability and transparency.</p>
<a name="19" id="19"></a>
<h3>19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program </h3>
<p>Whereas, the skills of Board members are critical to enable the ICANN
Board to function effectively in the complex ICANN environment;</p>
<p>Whereas, Board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and
experiences;</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board is committed to the appropriate support for
director training and development of Board member skills;</p>
<p>Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge
Board members need to be effective in their roles as Board members;</p>
<p>Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for Board
members has been positive; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Governance Committee at the request of the Board
has assessed the training environment for Board members and recommends
that the Board approve this resolution.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.45), the CEO is directed to develop a
comprehensive Board Training Program that: identifies the skills and
knowledge that individuals need, to be effective board members; produces
training materials in a variety of media; is conducted according to a
regular schedule; evaluates the effectiveness of the training; and
adjusts the programs to meet the changing Board needs and the ICANN
environment, and to report back to the Board on implementation issues,
including costing, no later than ICANN's 2010 Annual General Meeting.</p>
<a name="20" id="20"></a>
<h3>20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants </h3>
<p>Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental
change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation;</p>
<p>Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on
relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of
discussion and analysis;</p>
<p>Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and
opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and
registrants;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive,
along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;</p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD
applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and</p>
<p>Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed
concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that
these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially
those from developing countries.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an
inclusive New gTLD Program.</p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work
through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a
sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring
assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs .</p>
<a name="21" id="21"></a>
<h3>21. Other Business </h3>
<p>[TBD]</p>
<a name="22" id="22"></a>
<h3>22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers </h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and
skills which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN
process;</p>
<p>Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to
acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of
service end; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council
expire after the Nairobi meeting:</p>
<ul>
<li>Oscar Alejandro Robles-Garay, .mx - Oscar has been a ccNSO
Councillor ever since the first ccNSO Council in 2004</li>
<li>Oscar Moreno, .pr – Oscar joined the ccNSO Council in 2007</li>
</ul>
<p>Resolved, Oscar Robles and Oscar Moreno have earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board
wishes them well in all future endeavours.</p>
<a name="23" id="23"></a>
<h3>23. Thanks to Sponsors </h3>
<p>The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:</p>
<p>Ministry of Information and Communications; Communciations Commission
of Kenya – CCK, Afilias Limited, NeuStar, Inc., .CO, VeriSign, Inc.,
GMO Registry, Inc., InterNetX, China Internet Network Information Center
(CNNIC), AfriNIC, Public Interest Registry, China Organizational Name
Administration Center, .PRO, dotMobi, RU-CENTER, Nairobi Net Online,
Kenya ICT Board, TESPOK (Telecommunication Service Providers
Association), Safaricom, Zain, Internet Solution, Access Kenya Seacom,
UUNET.</p>
<p>Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTANet (Kenya ICT
Action Network) and Jamii Tours – Shuttle Buses.</p>
<a name="24" id="24"></a>
<h3>24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams </h3>
<p>The Board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, the
interpreters, and to the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in
facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting.</p>
<p>The Board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLan Events
Services, Inc. Special thanks are also given to Steve Morgan, Kris Van
Der Plas for their audiovisual support. Paul Bevan, Audio Engineer, and
Ted Bartles, Technical Director and Josh Baulch, Technical Support,
Yvonne Asonga and Aitec Africa.</p>
<p>The Board would also like to thank the Kenyatta International
Conference Centre and all the event staff for their support, as well the
Sarova Stanley, Fairmont The Norfolk and the Laico Regency hotels.</p>
<a name="25" id="25"></a>
<h3>25. Thanks to Local Hosts </h3>
<p>The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer,
Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC) for their support.</p>
<p>Special thanks to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Honorable Samuel Pogishio – Minister of Information and
Communication, Kenya</p>
<p>Dr. Bitange Ndemo - Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Information
and Communication, Kenya</p>
<p>Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK</p>
<p>Abraham Ondeng - Ministry of Information and Communication/Local
Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Joe Kiragu - .KE Administrator - KENIC/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Alice Munyua - CCK Board/KENIC Board/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP</p>
<p>Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP</p>
<p>Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee</p>
<p>Stephen Munguti - Security Committee</p>
<p>Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee</p>
<p>Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board</p>
</blockquote>
<a name="26" id="26"></a>
<h3>26. Thanks to Meeting Participants </h3>
<p>Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of
participants at the meetings; and</p>
<p>Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog
at this meeting;</p>
Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.