[ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA

Wed Feb 12 22:21:52 UTC 2014

Oops!  Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.

You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and
devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make
in this enterprise.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>wrote:

> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September
> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2.e
>
> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on
> October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to
> have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
>
> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg-03feb14-en.pdf
> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This
> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial
> savings to ICANN." part.
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC
> > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was
> > on the consent agenda.
> >
> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter
> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of
> technical
> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter
> > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at
> > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The
> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis
> that
> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to
> > technical communities."
> >
> > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as
> > they were posted for public comment at
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
> ,
> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification.
> >
> > The rationale given was as follows:
> >
> > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board
> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28
> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
> >
> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical
> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that
> make
> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The
> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations
> > from continuing with their outreach efforts.
> >
> > This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a
> financial
> > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of
> how
> > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact
> on
> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or
> > resiliency of the DNS."
> >
> >
> > Dev Anand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Of note:
> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the
> NGPC.
> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on
> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they
> could
> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be
> done.
> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom.
> >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was
> not
> >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and
> >> whether there was any substantive discussion.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/
> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
> >>
> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
> >> 7 February 2014
> >>
> >> 1.  Consent Agenda
> >>         a.  Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
> >>         b.  Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
> Advisory
> >> Committee
> >>         c.  Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
> >>         d.  New gTLD Program Committee Membership
> >>
> >> 2.  Main Agenda
> >>         a.  Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
> >>         b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
> >>         c.  GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
> >>
> >> 1.   Consent Agenda:
> >>         a.   Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
> >>         b.   Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
> >> Advisory Committee
> >>         c.   Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
> >>         d.   New gTLD Program Committee Membership
> >>
> >> 2.   Main Agenda:
> >>
> >>         a.  Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
> >>
> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
> >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in
> All
> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group
> Charter
> >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF,
> >> 189 KB].
> >>
> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
> ICANN
> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report
> delivered to
> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
> >>
> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working
> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in
> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
> >>
> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of
> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a
> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see
> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
> >>
> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on
> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been
> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ).
> >>
> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ©
> >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on
> >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at
> the
> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
> >>
> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO
> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO
> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report
> >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF,
> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations
> so
> >> that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same
> topic.
> >>
> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD
> >> Program Committee to:
> >>
> >>         (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it
> >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice
> on
> >> protections for IGOs; and
> >>
> >>         (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice
> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a
> >> subsequent meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >> b.   Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
> Recruitment
> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition
> >>
> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom
> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (
> >>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the
> >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee.
> >>
> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it
> is
> >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and
> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
> >>
> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a
> >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance
> with
> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be
> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
> >>
> >> Related materials:
> >>
> >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January
> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf
> >> Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in
> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
> >>
> >>         c.  GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
> >>
> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
> Development
> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both
> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at
> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
> >>
> >>  Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the
> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21
> October
> >>> 2013.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus
> on
> >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of
> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October
> 2013
> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/
> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1).
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold
> set
> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN
> >>> contracted parties.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois
> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the
> >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the
> >>> ICANN Board.
> >>>
> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held
> on
> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly
> supported
> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm).
> >>>
> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy
> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth
> in
> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/
> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]).
> >>>
> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to
> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois
> Policy
> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The
> President
> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation
> Review
> >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to
> >>> continue communication with the community on such work.
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> >> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>