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] > > >