Thanks Robin,

As minute 25 notes, the local organising committee similarly requires
Structural Improvements to ensure more bottom-up local representation.
We have (locally) complained about these sorts of exclusions for
years!

regards,

Alex

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi
>
> 12 March 2010
>
> Consent Agenda
> 1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting
> 1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting
> 1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board
> 1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor
> 1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group
> 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
> 1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation
> President's Report
> Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report
> New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of Expressions
> of Interest Proposal
> New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
> New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
> Suspension System
> New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure
> (PDDRP) - Legal Rights
> New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation
> Procedure (RRDRP) – Community
> New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement
> IDN Variants
> New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan
> Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support
> Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process
> Framework for FY11 Operating Plan
> Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v.
> ICANN
> Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010
> Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 10-1
> Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 10-1
> BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program
> Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants
> Other Business
> Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers
> Thanks to Sponsors
> Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams
> Thanks to Local Hosts
> Thanks to Meeting Participants
>
> 1. Consent Agenda
>
> Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby
> approved:
>
> 1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 4
> February 2010 Board Meeting.
>
> 1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 19
> February 2010 Board Meeting.
>
> 1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board
>
> Whereas, the Board Committees have reported their activities in Nairobi at a
> public session;
>
> 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.
>
> 1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor
>
> Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws in Article XVI, Section 3
> <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm>, 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;
>
> Whereas, the Audit Committee of the Board discussed requirements and best
> practices for Audit Partner rotation;
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.05), the Board authorizes the review of the Technical
> Liaison Group.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> 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;
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> Board review Working Group: Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Amadeu Abril, Steve
> Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Rita Rodin Johnston and
> Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
> NomCom finalization review Working Group: Thomas Roessler (Chair), Alejandro
> Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein and George Sadowsky (non-voting).
> SSAC review Working Group: Dennis Jennings (Chair), Robert Blokzijl,
> Reinhard Scholl, and Suzanne Woolf.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, the Board asked existing GNSO Constituencies to seek Board
> reconfirmation prior to the Nairobi meeting; and
>
> 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.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.13), the Board extends the timetable for those
> reconfirmation submissions to the ICANN International meeting in Brussels,
> Belgium.
>
> 2. President's Report
>
> (For discussion only.)
>
> 3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status Report
>
> (For discussion only.)
>
> 4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of
> Expressions of Interest Proposal
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, the Board has carefully considered all public comments received on
> the EOI;
>
> 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
>
> Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in the New
> gTLD Program continue to progress.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.14) the Board withdraws the Expressions of Interest
> proposal from consideration.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.15) the Board directs the CEO to continue to work
> towards the launch of the New gTLD Program.
>
> 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.
>
> 5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
>
> Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the
> public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and
> more;
>
> 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;\
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to
> registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
> Suspension System
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP Clearinghouse and a Uniform
> Rapid Suspension System (URS) that were subject to public comment;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure
> (PDDRP) - Legal Rights
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, ICANN considered public comment, revised the PDDRP, and the Board
> directed that it be included in version 3 of the Applicant Guidebook; and
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation
> Procedure (RRDRP) – Community
>
> 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";
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider would
> allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding enforcement of
> community restrictions; and
>
> Whereas, the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) was
> published for public comment on 31 May 2009 <
> http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm >, along with an
> explanatory memorandum <
> http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf > 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.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.24), ICANN shall publish a final draft version of the
> RRDRP in Draft Applicant Guidebook 4.
>
> 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.
>
> 9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received; and
>
> Whereas, a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the New gTLD
> Program has also been posted for public comment.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 10. IDN Variants
>
> Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are affected by
> the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is consistent
> with the Team's recommendations;
>
> 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.
>
> 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;.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications Plan
>
> Whereas, New gTLD Program communications activities began in June 2008 with
> the policy approval during ICANN's Meeting in Paris;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan <
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf
>> that supports the New gTLD Program implementation plan and considers a
> full range of global audiences;
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> Whereas, the Board has listened to the community input about intensifying
> communications activities in various regions around the world.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support
>
> Whereas, on 16 November 2009 ICANN launched the IDN Fast Track process
> pursuant to the Board's resolution on 30 October 2009;
>
> 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;
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.36), that the Working Group's mandate will end at the
> conclusion of the Board's 2010 Annual General Meeting.
>
> 13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track
> Process
>
> Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process on 16 November 2009
> as set forth in the Board resolution of 30 October 2009;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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”).
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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;
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan
>
> (For discussion only.)
>
> 15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry
> v. ICANN
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;
>
> 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;
>
> Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held in
> Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness
> testimony;
>
> Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority Declaration
> with findings;
>
> 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";
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 16. Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010
>
> Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2010 in the Latin
> America region;
>
> Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as host for
> the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;
>
> Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals received;
> and
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request
> 10-1
>
> 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.
>
> 18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request
> 10-1
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program
>
> Whereas, the skills of Board members are critical to enable the ICANN Board
> to function effectively in the complex ICANN environment;
>
> Whereas, Board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and
> experiences;
>
> Whereas, the Board is committed to the appropriate support for director
> training and development of Board member skills;
>
> Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge Board
> members need to be effective in their roles as Board members;
>
> Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for Board members
> has been positive; and
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants
>
> Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to
> the marketplace, including competition and innovation;
>
> Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships
> between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and
> analysis;
>
> Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for
> innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants;
>
> Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along
> the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;
>
> Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD
> applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and
>
> 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.
>
> Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an
> inclusive New gTLD Program.
>
> 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 .
>
> 21. Other Business
>
> [TBD]
>
> 22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers
>
> Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills
> which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process;
>
> Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge
> and thank members of the community when their terms of service end; and
>
> Whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council expire
> after the Nairobi meeting:
>
> Oscar Alejandro Robles-Garay, .mx - Oscar has been a ccNSO Councillor ever
> since the first ccNSO Council in 2004
> Oscar Moreno, .pr – Oscar joined the ccNSO Council in 2007
>
> 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.
>
> 23. Thanks to Sponsors
>
> The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:
>
> 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.
>
> Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTANet (Kenya ICT Action
> Network) and Jamii Tours – Shuttle Buses.
>
> 24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 25. Thanks to Local Hosts
>
> The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer, Kenya
> Network Information Center (KENIC) for their support.
>
> Special thanks to:
>
> Honorable Samuel Pogishio – Minister of Information and Communication, Kenya
>
> Dr. Bitange Ndemo - Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Information and
> Communication, Kenya
>
> Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK
>
> Abraham Ondeng - Ministry of Information and Communication/Local Organizing
> Committee
>
> Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Joe Kiragu - .KE Administrator - KENIC/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Alice Munyua - CCK Board/KENIC Board/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee
>
> John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP
>
> Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP
>
> Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee
>
> Stephen Munguti - Security Committee
>
> Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee
>
> Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board
>
> 26. Thanks to Meeting Participants
>
> Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of participants
> at the meetings; and
>
> Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog at this
> meeting;
>
> Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their contributions.
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>