[ALAC] 9 August 2016 Approved Resolutions
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 20:50:27 UTC 2016
Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders,
The Board met on 9 August 2016. Below is the set of resolutions/decisions.
Quite a few important items approved including those related to the IANA
Stewardship Transition and the GNSO Policy Recommendations on Proxy and
Privacy Services.
See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en
for
9 August 2016 approved ICANN Board resolutions. Text pasted below.
Best regards,
Rinalia
[image: feedback]
Skip to main content
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#main-content>
-
- Log In <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_in>
- Sign Up <https://www.icann.org/users/sign_up>
[image: Icann logo] <https://www.icann.org/>
<https://www.icann.org/get-started>
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/beginners-guides-2012-03-06-en>
<https://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/newcomers>
<https://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships>
<https://www.icann.org/news>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcements> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog>
<https://www.icann.org/news/multimedia>
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/press>
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-newsletter>
<https://www.icann.org/policy>
<https://www.icann.org/policy#what_is_policy>
<https://www.icann.org/policy#how_is_policy_developed>
<https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation>
<https://www.icann.org/policy#updates>
<https://www.icann.org/policy#participate>
<https://www.icann.org/policy#staff>
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments>
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public>
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments#closed-public>
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments#upcoming-public>
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/archive>
<https://www.icann.org/resources>
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-2014-03-19-en>
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability-2012-02-25-en>
<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars>
<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries>
<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance>
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help-2012-02-03-en>
<https://www.icann.org/community>
<https://www.icann.org/community#groups>
<https://www.icann.org/community/explore>
<https://features.icann.org/calendar>
<https://www.icann.org/community/demographics>
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship>
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WS1+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability>
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation>
Resources
-
About ICANN <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/welcome-2012-02-25-en>
-
Board
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-2014-03-19-en>
-
Accountability <https://www.icann.org/resources/accountability>
-
Governance
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance-2012-02-25-en>
-
Groups <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en>
- Business <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/business>
- Civil Society
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/civil-society-2016-05-24-en>
-
Contractual Compliance
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-2012-02-25-en>
-
Registrars
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars-0d-2012-02-25-en>
-
Registries
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries-46-2012-02-25-en>
- GDD Metrics
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/metrics-gdd-2015-01-30-en>
-
Identifier Systems Security, Stability and Resiliency (IS-SSR)
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/is-ssr-2014-11-24-en>
-
ccTLDs <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds-21-2012-02-25-en>
-
Internationalized Domain Names
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-2012-02-25-en>
-
Universal Acceptance Initiative
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/universal-acceptance-2012-02-25-en>
-
Policy <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-01-2012-02-25-en>
-
Public Comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments>
- Root Zone KSK Rollover
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover-2016-05-06-en>
-
Technical Functions
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/technical-functions-2015-10-15-en>
-
Contact <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-2012-02-06-en>
-
Help <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help-2012-02-03-en>
Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board
09 Aug 2016
1. *Consent Agenda:
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#1>*
1. *Approval of Minutes
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#1.a>*
2. *Main Agenda:
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2>*
1. *Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.a>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.02 – 2016.08.09.03
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.a.rationale>*
2. *PTI Articles of Incorporation
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.b>*
- *Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.04
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.b.rationale>*
3. *Root Zone Maintainer Agreement
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.c>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.05
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.c.rationale>*
4. *ICANN Restated Articles of Incorporation
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.d>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.06 – 2016.08.09.07
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.d.rationale>*
5. *GNSO Policy Recommendations on Privacy & Proxy Services
Accreditation
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.e>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.08 – 2016.08.09.10
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.e.rationale>*
6. *Consideration of BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request
16-3 (.GAY)
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.f>*
7. *Consideration of Dot Registry v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.g>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.11 – 2016.08.09.13
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.g.rationale>*
8. *Consideration of Request for Cancellation of HOTEL Top-Level
Domain S.a.r.l's (HTLD's) Application for .HOTEL
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.h>*
- *Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.14 – 2016.08.09.15
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#2.h.rationale>*
3. *Executive Session - Confidential:
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#3>*
1. *Ombudsman FY16 At-Risk Compensation
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#3.a>*
- *Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.16
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#3.a.rationale>*
2. *Officer Compensation
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#3.b>*
- *Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.16 – 2016.08.09.20
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-08-09-en#3.b.rationale>*
1. Consent Agenda:
1. Approval of Minutes
Resolved (2016.08.09.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 25
June and 27 June 2016 Meetings of the ICANN Board.
2. Main Agenda:
1. Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter
Whereas, ICANN developed the proposed Root Zone Evolution Review
Committee (RZERC) charter in cooperation with the Implementation
Oversight
Task Force (IOTF) and the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related
Functions (CWG-Stewardship).
Whereas, the proposed charter is consistent with the IANAStewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal that the Board approved
and transmitted to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) on 10 March 2016.
Whereas, ICANN commenced a public comment period from 30 June 2016 to
10 July 2016 <
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-rzerc-charter-2016-06-10-en>
on the proposed charter <
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-rzerc-charter-10jun16-en.pdf>
[PDF, 43 KB].
Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed charter closed on
10 July 2016, with ICANN receiving seven comment submissions by both
individuals and organizations/groups. Upon review of these comments,
ICANN coordinated with the impacted parts of the ICANNcommunity to
address the concerns and revise the charter appropriately.
Whereas, the RZERC charter calls for a representative from the
ICANN Board
to serve in the Committee.
Resolved (2016.08.09.02), the Board approves the RZERC charter as
revised in response to public comment, and the President and CEO, or his
designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate
to form the
RZERC.
Resolved (2016.08.09.03), the Board appoints Suzanne Woolf to serve
on the RZERC.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.02 – 2016.08.09.03*
*Why the Board is addressing the issue now?*
On 10 March 2016, the Board approved and transmitted the IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and directed
ICANN to proceed with implementation planning. One of the
requirements in the naming portion of the ICG proposal is the
formation of a standing committee to review proposed
architectural changes
to the content of the DNS root zone, the systems including both
hardware and software components used in executing changes to
the DNS root
zone, and the mechanisms used for distribution of the DNS root zone.
The Committee shall, as determined necessary by its membership, make
recommendations related to those changes for consideration by the
ICANN Board. The Board's approval at the recommendation of the
Committee is the CWG-Stewardship's proposed replacement for NTIA's
current role, which would no longer be in place if the IANA Functions
Contract lapses. As part of implementation planning, ICANNnamed this
standing committee Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) and
worked with the community to draft a charter for the Committee.
*What is the proposal being considered?*
The proposed charter describes the purpose, scope of
responsibilities, and composition of the Committee. The charter also sets
out how the Committee will conduct itself, including frequency and method
of meetings, how decisions will be made, records of proceedings,
as well as
conflict of interest. Lastly, the charter sets out requirements
for review
and amendments to the charter.
*Which stakeholders or others were consulted?*
ICANN consulted with the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF)
as well as the CWG-Stewardship in the development of the
proposed charter.
ICANN also conducted a public comment period on the proposed charter
from 10 June 2016 through 10 July 2016, following which time the comments
were summarized and analyzed.
*What concerns or issues were raised by the community?*
Seven (7) members of the community participated in the public comment
period. Members of the community raised one key concern in their comments.
The concern was that the scope of responsibilities of the RZERC as
drafted seems to overlap with the responsibilities of the RSSAC. The
scope of the RZERC as drafted is to consider architectural and
operational
issues that impose potential risk to the root zone and the root system.
Commenters suggested that this scope could be interpreted to
mean that the
RZERC could consider issues relating to the operation of the
root servers,
which is a responsibility of the RSSAC. To address this concern,
ICANNworked
with the RSSAC to modify the scope of the RZERC to clarify that the
RZERC is expected to review proposed architectural changes to the content
of the DNS root zone, the systems including both hardware and
software components used in executing changes to the DNS root zone,
and the mechanisms used for distribution of the DNS root zone. The
Committee shall, as determined necessary by its membership, make
recommendations related to those changes for consideration by the
ICANN Board.
*What significant materials did the Board review?*
As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials,
including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:
- The proposed RZERC charter <
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-rzerc-charter-10jun16-en.pdf>
[PDF, 43 KB]
- Public comments <
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-rzerc-charter-10jun16/
>
- Summary and analysis of public comments
- IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal <
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>
[PDF, 2.32 MB]
- The RZERC charter as modified in response to public comment.
*Are there positive or negative community impacts?*
The Board's approval of the charter is an important step in the
implementation planning process to fulfill one of the
requirements from the
ICGproposal, which was endorsed by the global stakeholder community
and approved by the Board on 10 March 2016.
*Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN(strategic plan,
operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?*
There is no fiscal impact expected.
*Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to
the DNS?*
The approval of the proposed charter would be an important step
toward ensuring security, stability and resiliency of the DNS post
transition. The RZERC's scope of responsibility will be to provide the
ICANNBoard with recommendations regarding proposed architectural
changes to the content of the DNS root zone, the systems including
both hardware and software components used in executing changes to the
DNS root zone, and the mechanisms used for distribution of the DNS root
zone.
2. PTI Articles of Incorporation
Whereas, on 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of
Commerce announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the
IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community.
Whereas, on 10 March 2016, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) accepted and transmitted to the NTIA the
following transition documents: (i) the IANA Stewardship Transition
Coordination Group's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, (the
"ICG Proposal")
and (ii) the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability's
Work Stream 1 Report (collectively, the "Transition Proposals").
Whereas, the ICG Proposal included a requirement that ICANN develop
an affiliate to perform the naming-related IANA functions under a
contract with ICANN, PTI. The ICGProposal required PTI to be a
California Nonprofit Public Benefit Organization, and ICANN is to be
the sole member of PTI.
Whereas, ICANN lawyers worked diligently with the independent counsel
to the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANAStewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions ("CWG-Stewardship") to
develop Articles of Incorporation for the new PTI. Those draft Articles
were posted for public comment for a period of 30 days.
Whereas, upon the close of the comment period, a detailed analysis of
the comments was performed and modifications were made to the Articles in
response to the public comments. ICANN coordinated with the
independent law firm on the revisions.
Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has asserted that the proposed PTI
Articles of Incorporation remain consistent with the Transition Proposals
and recommends that ICANNproceed to forming the affiliate to allow
for implementation planning to continue.
Resolved (2016.08.09.04), the ICANN Board authorizes ICANN's CEO, or
his designee, to proceed with the formation of PTI, including
the filing of
the proposed PTI Articles of Incorporation as revised after
public comment.
*Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.04*
The authorization for ICANN to proceed with the formation of PTI,
through the filing of the PTI Articles of Incorporation, is a
crucial step
in the planning for the implementation of the Transition
Proposals. This is
a key step for ICANN's report to NTIA on the status of implementation
planning. This timely authorization to move forward with the formation of
PTI is necessary to support the global multistakeholder community's work
towards a successful completion of the stewardship of the IANA
functions.
These PTI Articles are product of collective work of the internal and
external legal teams along with the intensive work of the
CWG-Stewardship.
The PTI Articles were posted for a 30-day public comment period,
and three
comments were received. Each of the comments was considered and analyzed,
and explanation was provided on whether the PTI Articles required
modification to reflect the issues raised within the comment.
With the small number of comments, the Articles did not require
significant change in response to those comments. The changes that were
made included a modification to the purpose of PTI to more accurately
reflect PTI's limited, narrow role to perform the IANAfunctions.
Another change was made to reflect the proper threshold needed
to amend the
PTI Articles.
In taking this action, the Board relied upon:
- ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>
[PDF,
2.32 MB]
- Report of Public Comments on PTI Articles of Incorporation
- Draft PTI Articles of Incorporation
The Board also relied upon the General Counsel and Secretary's
affirmation that PTI Articles reflect the Transition Proposals,
as well as
the inputs of independent counsel to craft the PTI Articles to
support the
ICG Proposal.
Authorizing the formation of PTI is in line with ICANN's commitment
to accountability and transparency. This action confirms ICANN's
commitment to implement the Transition Proposals and all of the
elements in
those Proposals.
Forming PTI is not anticipated to have any impact on the security,
stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the PTI will be essential
to ICANN's security, stability and resiliency work. There will be
resource implications, including significant resources to support a new
affiliate.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public
comments were received.
3. Root Zone Maintainer Agreement
Whereas, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
officially requested that Verisign and ICANN work together to develop
a proposal on how best to transition NTIA's administrative role
associated with root zone management in a manner that maintains the
security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet's domain
name system in
a 4 March 2015 letter to ICANN.
Whereas, in August 2015, ICANN and Verisign submitted a proposal to
NTIA in response to its request <
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>
[PDF, 247 KB]. The proposal outlines two parts, a parallel testing period
of the of Root Zone Management Systems (RZMS) and a Root Zone Maintainer
Agreement (RZMA) with Verisign for Verisign to continue
performing the root
zone maintainer function it performs today under the Cooperative
Agreement
<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/verisign-cooperative-agreement> with
the Department of Commerce.
Whereas, NTIA specified in a 9 June 2016 letter to ICANN that a
finalized RZMA and successful completion of the parallel testing
period are
pre-conditions to the IANA Stewardship transition.
Whereas, the completion of the RZMA is a requirement from the package
of proposals that the Board approved on 10 March 2016 to transition
NTIA's stewardship of the IANA function to the global
multistakeholder community and, because the RZMA exceeds US$500,000 in
total, requires that the Board approves to delegate signature
authority to
the CEO.
Whereas, the parallel testing period of the RZMS successfully
concluded on 6 July 2016 <
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-07-14-en>.
Whereas, ICANN and Verisign finalized negotiations on the terms of
the proposed RZMA for Verisign to perform the root zone maintainer
function, and published the proposed RZMA for a 30-day notice period as
required by the IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
proposal <
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/root-zone-management-transition-update-preservation-of-security-stability-and-resiliency
>.
Whereas, the proposed RZMA contains provisions that incorporate
relevant requirements from the Cross Community Working Group on Naming
Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship).
Whereas, the Board Finance Committee reviewed the financial aspects
and implications of the RZMA and found (i) that the proposed costs of the
contract were reasonable, (ii) that the procurement process had been
respected, (iii) that the costs were affordable, and recommended approval
by the Board as a result.
Resolved (2016.08.09.05), the proposed RZMA is approved, and the
President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions
as appropriate to finalize and execute the Agreement.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.05*
*Why the Board is addressing the issue now?*
In a 4 March 2015 letter, the National Telecommunications and
Information Agency (NTIA) "officially requested that Verisign and
ICANN work together to develop a proposal on how best to transition
NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management in a
manner that maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet's domain name system." In August 2015, ICANNand Verisign
submitted a proposal to NTIA in response to its request <
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>
[PDF, 247 KB]. The proposal outlines two parts, a parallel testing period
of the of Root Zone Management System (RZMS) and a Root ZoneMaintainer
Agreement with Verisign for Verisign to continue performing the root zone
maintainer function it performs today under the Cooperative Agreement
<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/verisign-cooperative-agreement> with
the Department of Commerce.
Completion of the RZMA is also specified as one of the requirements
from the package of proposals that the Board approved on 10 March 2016 to
transition NTIA's stewardship of the IANA function to the global
multistakeholder community and, because it exceeds US$500,000 in total,
requires that the Board approves to delegate signature authority
to the CEO.
Since last August, ICANN and Verisign have had ongoing discussions
and negotiations regarding the terms of the RZMA. Negotiations
concluded in
June and the proposed RZMA was published for a 30-day public
notice period
on 30 June 2016. The 30-day public notice period ended on 30
July 2016 and
the Board has considered the proposed RZMA for approval.
*What is the proposal being considered?*
The proposed RZMA allows Verisign to continue providing services for
root zone maintenance, root zone signing with the ZSK, and
distribution of
the root zone file and related files to the root zone operators at a
nominal fee. The RZMA provides for an 8-year term with robust
service level
agreements that can be modified via a change control process should the
customers of IANA require changes to these service level agreements.
The change control process also allows for changes to the Root
Zone Management
System as root zone management evolves to meet the needs of the
community.
While the 8-year term of the RZMA is intended to promote the security,
stability and resiliency of root zone maintenance operations by having
Verisign continue in its role, the agreement also provides a
capability for
the community, through a consensus-based community-driven
process, to cause
ICANNto transition the function to another service provider after
three years. The full RZMA was posted for a 30-day public notice
period on
30 June 2016 as required by the ICG proposal and can be viewed at <
https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/63-root-zone-maintainer-agreement-v-1-0
>.
*Which stakeholders or others were consulted?*
ICANN held discussions and negotiations with Verisign, Inc. to
finalize the proposed RZMA, which was then posted for a 30-day public
notice period from 30 June through 30 July 2016.
*What concerns or issues were raised by the community?*
No significant issues or concerns were brought to ICANN's attention
during the 30-day public notice period.
*What significant materials did the Board review?*
As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials,
including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:
- Verisign Cooperative Agreement with the United States Government <
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/verisign-cooperative-agreement>
- 4 March 2015 letter from NTIA
- Verisign/ICANN Proposal in Response to NTIARequest – Root
ZoneAdministrator
Proposal Related to the IANAFunctions Stewardship Transition <
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>
[PDF, 247 KB]
- Root Zone Maintainer Agreement <
https://www.icann.org/iana_imp_docs/63-root-zone-maintainer-agreement-v-1-0
>
- IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal <
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>
[PDF, 2.32 MB]
*What factors has the Board found to be significant?*
The Board carefully considered the RZMA to ensure it contains
provisions that would allow ICANN to meet the requirements of the
community for the transition, such as:
- The ability to modify service level agreements due to
recommendations from the Customer Standing Committee
- The ability to make modifications to the Root Zone Management
System due to recommendations from the Root ZoneEvolution Review
Committee
- The ability for the community, through a consensus-based
community-driven process, to cause ICANN to transition the
maintainer function to another service provider
- The Board also carefully considered the terms of the RZMA to
ensure that the maintainer function can continued to be operated in a
secure, stable, and reliable manner post transition.
*Are there positive or negative community impacts?*
A key goal of the proposed RZMA and continued engagement with
Verisign, Inc. for the performance of the maintainer function is
to provide
secure and stable operations of the root zone through the IANAStewardship
transition and beyond. The Board's approval of the proposed RZMA would
ensure that expectations of IANA customers will continue to be met.
*Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN(strategic plan,
operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?*
Verisign, Inc. has historically solely performed the maintainer
function at no cost and contracting directly with Verisign, Inc. for the
continued performance of this work is desirable to ensure continuity,
security and stability during the transition period. The terms
of the RZMA
allow for the community, through a consensus-based community-driven
process, to cause ICANNto transition the maintainer function to
another service provider. This contract creates a nominal annual
fee of USD
300,000 per year due to Verisign, Inc. for the performance of the
maintainer function. The ICANN Board Finance Committee has reviewed
the financial aspects and implications of the proposed RZMA and
recommended
approval of the RZMA to the ICANN Board, on the basis of this review.
*Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to
the DNS?*
The Board's approval of the proposed RZMA would ensure continuity,
security and stability of the operation of the root zone during the
transition period and beyond.
4. ICANN Restated Articles of Incorporation
Whereas, on 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of
Commerce announced its intention to transition the stewardship of the
IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community.
Whereas, on 10 March 2016, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) accepted and transmitted to the US National
Telecommunications and Information Agency the following transition
documents: (i) the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group's
IANAStewardship Transition Proposal, (the "ICG Proposal") and (ii)
the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability's
Work Stream 1 Report (collectively, the "Transition Proposals").
Whereas, the ICANN Articles of Incorporation need to be restated in
order to align with the new ICANN Bylaws and for consistency with the
Transition Proposals.
Whereas, ICANN lawyers worked diligently with the independent counsel
to the CCWG-Accountability to develop Restated Articles of Incorporation
for ICANN. Those Restated Articles were posted for public comment for
over 40 days.
Whereas, upon the close of the comments, a detailed analysis of the
comments was performed and modifications were made to the Articles in
response to the public comments. ICANNcoordinated with the
independent law firms on the revisions.
Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has asserted that the proposed
Restated ICANNArticles of Incorporation remain consistent with the
Transition Proposals and recommends that the Board approve the
amendment to
ICANN's Articles and authorize ICANN to proceed to filing at the
appropriate time.
Resolved (2016.08.09.06), the ICANN Board approves the proposed
amendments to ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, which shall be
deemed effective upon the expiration the IANA Functions Contract
between ICANN and NTIA.
Resolved (2016.08.09.07), the ICANN Board authorizes ICANN's CEO, or
his designee, to proceed with the filing of the Restated Articles of
Incorporation once they are effective.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.06 – 2016.08.09.07*
The adoption of the Restated Articles of Incorporation is another key
step in the planning for the implementation of the Transition Proposals.
The Board is being taking this action now to support ICANN's
transition planning status report to NTIAdue on 12 August 2016. The
adoption of amendments to ICANN Articles of Incorporation completes
the changes to ICANN's key governance documents that is necessary to
align with the Transition Proposals and support the global
multistakeholder
community's work towards a successful completion of the
stewardship of the
IANAfunctions.
These Restated Articles were developed jointly between the legal
teams in coordination with the ICANN community. The external counsel
to the CCWG-Accountability, as well as ICANN's lawyers, worked
closely with the CCWG-Accountability to confirm its understanding and
support of the document. The proposed Restated Articles were posted for
public for over 40 days, including a requested extension. Six
comments were
received. Each of the comments was considered and analyzed, and
explanation
was provided on whether the Articles required modification to reflect the
issues raised within the comment. The legal teams continued their close
coordination in developing the necessary updates to the Articles.
The changes to the draft Articles based on comments were limited.
In taking this action, the Board relied upon:
- ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>
[PDF,
2.32 MB]
- Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
(CCWG-Accountability) Work Stream 1 Report ("Report") to the ICANN
Board
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-accountability-supp-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-23feb16-en.pdf>
[PDF,
6.03 MB]
- Report of Public Comments Proposed Restated Articles of
Incorporation (clean and redline to existing Articles)
The Board also relied upon the General Counsel and Secretary's
affirmation that the Restated Articles reflect the Transition
Proposals, as
well as the work of the independent counsel to craft the Articles in
support of the Transition Proposals.
The adoption of these Articles is in line with ICANN's commitment to
accountability and transparency, as this completes the key governance
document that ICANN needs to put in place to provide the community
with the new and enhanced accountability tools. This action confirms
ICANN's commitment to adopt the accountability changes.
The adoption of these Restated Articles is not anticipated to have
any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. The
resource implications for these Restated Articles are the same as the
potential resource implications identified for the implementation of the
new ICANN Bylaws.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public
comments were received.
5. GNSO Policy Recommendations on Privacy & Proxy Services
Accreditation
Whereas, on 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter
for a Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process that had been
requested by the ICANN Board concerning the accreditation by ICANN of
privacy and proxy domain name registration service providers, as further
described at
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf [PDF,
463 KB].
Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
ICANN Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report being delivered to the
GNSO Council
on 8 December 2015.
Whereas, the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working
Group (WG) reached Full Consensus on all its final recommendations
(see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf [PDF,
1.24 MB]).
Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the final
recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
PDP WG, and adopted the recommendations on 21 January 2016 by a
unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions -
201601 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201601>.)
Whereas, the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold
(i.e. supermajority) to impose new obligations on ICANNcontracted
parties.
Whereas, in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment period
was opened on the approved recommendations to provide the
community with a
reasonable opportunity to comment on their adoption prior to
action by the
ICANN Board, and the comments received have been summarized and
reported (see
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-ppsai-recommendations-31mar16-en.pdf
[PDF,
299 KB]).
Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws provide that the Board is to request the GAC's
opinion regarding "any policies that are being considered by the
Board for
adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges" and "take duly
into account any advice timely presented" as a result.
Whereas, the Board notified the GAC of the publication of the GNSO's
final recommendations for public comment on 19 February 2016 (see
https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Crocker-to-Thomas-Schneider-
GNSO-PDP.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1456046942000&api=v2
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27492514/2016-02-19-Steve-Crocker-to-Thomas-Schneider-GNSO-PDP.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1456046942000&api=v2>[PDF,
819 KB]).
Whereas, in its Marrakech Communiqué issued on 9 March 2016 the
GAC advised
the ICANN Board that it needed more time to consider potential public
policy concerns relating to the adoption of the final PDPrecommendations
(see https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GACMorocco
55 Communique FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1458046221000&api=v2
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/GAC%20Morocco%2055%20Communique%20FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1458046221000&api=v2>[PDF,
567 KB]).
Whereas, on 15 May 2016 the Board acknowledged receipt of the GNSO's
PDPrecommendations and resolved to consider them at its first meeting
following ICANN56 to enable the GAC to provide timely advice, if any
(see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en
- 2.a
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-05-15-en#2.a>
).
Whereas, in its Helsinki Communiqué issued on 30 June 2016 the
GAC advised
the ICANN Board to direct that the GAC's concerns be effectively
addressed to the greatest extent feasible by the Implementation
Review Team
that is to be convened to implement the adopted recommendations (see
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?preview=/27132037/43712639/20160630_GAC%20ICANN%2056%20Communique_FINAL%20.pdf[PDF,
328 KB]).
Resolved (2016.08.09.08), the Board hereby adopts all the final
recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
PDP Working Group, as passed by a unanimous vote of the GNSO Council
on 21 January 2016 ("Privacy/Proxy Policy Recommendations").
Resolved (2016.08.09.09), the Board directs the President and CEO, or
his authorized designee, to develop and execute an implementation plan,
including costs and timelines, for the Privacy/Proxy Policy
Recommendations
consistent with ICANN Bylaws Annex A and the Implementation Review
Team Guidelines & Principles endorsed by the Board on 28 September 2015
(see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en
- 2.f
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f>),
and to continue communication with the community on such work.
In the event
that policy issues arise in the course of implementation
discussions, they
should be referred back to the GNSO in accordance with the framework
for implementation associated with GNSO policy recommendations,
including the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles.
Resolved (2016.08.09.10), the Board acknowledges the GAC's advice
from the Helsinki Communiqué regarding the Privacy/Proxy Policy
Recommendations. The Board will consider the GAC's advice and provide
input to the Implementation Review Team for consideration in
implementation
planning.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.08 – 2016.08.09.10*
*Why is the Board addressing the issue now?*
In initiating negotiations with the Registrar Stakeholder Group for
new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) in October 2011,
the ICANNBoard also requested an Issue Report from the GNSO that,
upon the conclusion of the RAAnegotiations, would start a GNSO PDP to
address remaining issues not dealt with in the RAA negotiations. In
June 2013, the ICANN Board approved a new 2013 RAA, and the topic of
accrediting privacy and proxy services was identified as the
sole issue to
be resolved through a GNSO PDP. This topic had also been noted by the
Whois Review Team in its Final Report, published in May 2012, in
which the
Review Team had highlighted the current lack of clear and
consistent rules
regarding these services, resulting in unpredictable outcomes for
stakeholders. The Review Team thought that appropriate regulation and
oversight over such services would address stakeholder needs and
concerns,
and recommended that ICANNconsider an accreditation system. Until the
development of an accreditation program, only certain aspects of such
services are covered by an interim specification to the 2013 RAA,
which is due to expire on 1 January 2017 or the implementation by
ICANN of an accreditation program, whichever first occurs.
The GNSO Council approved all the final recommendations from the
PDP Working
Group's Final Report dated 8 December 2015 at its meeting on 21 January
2016, as well as a Recommendations Report to the Board in
February 2016. In
accordance with the ICANNBylaws, a public comment period was opened
to facilitate public input on the adoption of the
recommendations following
which the PDPrecommendations were forwarded to the Board for its
review. On 15 May 2016, the Board resolved to consider action on the
recommendations at the first Board meeting following ICANN56 in Helsinki,
Finland, to enable the GAC to provide timely advice on public policy
concerns raised by the PDP recommendations, if any. The GAC's advice
in its Helsinki Communiqué was for the Board to direct that the GAC's
concerns be effectively addressed to the greatest extent possible during
the implementation phase of the PDP recommendations.
*What is the proposal being considered?*
The GNSO's policy recommendations include minimum mandatory
requirements for the operation of privacy and proxy services; the
maintenance of designated contact points for abuse reporting and the
publication of a list of accredited providers; requirements
related to the
handling of requests for disclosure and/or publication of a customer's
contact details by certain third party requesters; conditions
regarding the
disclosure and publication of such details as well as the refusal to
disclose or publish; and principles governing the de-accreditation of
service providers. The full list and scope of the final
recommendations can
be found in Annex A of the GNSO Council's Recommendations Report to
the Board (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-ppsai-recommendations-09feb16-en.pdf
[PDF,
491 KB].
*Which stakeholders or others were consulted?*
As required by the GNSO's PDPManual, the Working Group reached out to
all GNSOStakeholder Groups and Constituencies as well as other
ICANN Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees for input during the early
phase of the PDP. The Working Group also held open community sessions
at all the ICANN Public Meetings that occurred during the life cycle
of this PDP. It also sought input on potential implementation issues
from ICANN's Registrar Services and Compliance teams. Public comment
periods were opened for the Preliminary Issue Report that preceded the
PDP, the Working Group's Initial Report, and the GNSO Council's
adoption of the Working Group's Final Report. The final
recommendations as
detailed in the Final Report were completed based on the Working Group's
review and analysis of all the public comments and input received in
response to its Initial Report.
Following the GAC's advice in its Marrakech Communiqué of 9 March
2016 and the Board's resolution of 15 May 2016, discussions also
took place
amongst the Board and community on the topic at ICANN56 in Helsinki,
Finland.
*What concerns or issues were raised by the community?*
A significant number of public comments were received by the Working
Group concerning the possibility that a distinction might be made between
domain name registrants with domains serving non-commercial purposes and
registrants who conduct online financial transactions. This had been an
open question in the Working Group's Initial Report, as at the time a
number of Working Group members had supported that distinction.
As a result
of further Working Group deliberations following review of the public
comments received, the Working Group reached consensus on a
recommendation
that no such distinction be made for purposes of accrediting services.
Concerns had also been expressed over the need to ensure that there
are adequate safeguards in place for maintaining the privacy of customer
data, and that a reasonable balance is struck as between a
legitimate need
for access to information (e.g. by law enforcement and intellectual
property rights-holders) and that of protecting privacy. Many public
comments received in response to the Working Group's Initial Report also
highlighted the potential dangers of disclosing private
information without
cause, including the threat to the physical safety of certain groups of
domain name registrants and privacy/proxy customers. The Working Group's
final recommendations include a number of suggested principles
and policies
that aim to provide more concrete guidance than exists at present for
privacy and proxy services, third party requesters of customer
information,
and domain name registrants in relation to topics such as the handling of
customer notifications, information requests and domain name transfers.
The Working Group also received several comments concerning the lack
of a detailed framework for the submission and confidential handling of
disclosure requests from law enforcement authorities, including from the
GAC's Public Safety Working Group. In its Initial Report, the Working
Group sought community input on the question as to whether and how such a
framework might be developed as well as on more specific
questions such as
whether it should be mandatory for accredited providers to comply with
express requests from law enforcement authorities in the provider's
jurisdiction not to notify a customer. Based on input received,
the Working
Group agreed that accredited privacy and proxy service providers should
comply with express law enforcement requests not to notify a
customer where
this is required by applicable law. Providers would be free to
voluntarily
adopt more stringent standards or otherwise cooperate with law
enforcement
authorities. The Working Group's Final Report also contains a suggestion
for certain minimum requirements that could be included if such
a framework
is to be developed during the implementation phase of the adopted PDP
recommendations.
*What significant materials did the Board review?*
The Board reviewed the PDPWorking Group's Final Report, the GNSO
Council's
Recommendations Report on the topic to the Board, the summary of public
comments received in response to the public comment period that
was opened
following the GNSOCouncil's adoption of the recommendations contained
in the Final Report, and GACadvice received on the topic, as provided
in the Marrakech and Helsinki Communiqués.
*What factors did the Board find to be significant?*
The recommendations were developed following the GNSOPolicy
Development Process as set out in Annex A of the ICANNBylaws and have
received the unanimous support of the GNSOCouncil. As outlined in the
ICANN Bylaws, the Council's supermajority support obligates the Board
to adopt the recommendations unless, by a vote of more than
two-thirds, the
Board determines that the recommended policy is not in the best interests
of the ICANNcommunity or ICANN.
The Bylaws also allow for input from the GAC in relation to public
policy concerns that might be raised if a proposed policy is
adopted by the
Board. The GAC had raised this possibility with respect to this PDP and
the Board will continue to consider the advice that the GAC provided.
*Are there positive or negative community impacts?*
Developing a full accreditation program for privacy and proxy service
providers will require significant resources and take a
substantial period
of time. It is likely that the interim specification contained
in the 2013
RAA will need to be extended beyond its current expiration date of 1
January 2017, to allow for development of such a program.
Implementing the GNSO's recommendations will result in a more uniform
set of standards for many aspects of privacy and proxy services,
including
more consistent procedures for the handling, processing and determination
of third party requests by accredited providers, into which reasonable
safeguards to protect consumer privacy can be incorporated and public
policy concerns highlighted by the GACaddressed as far as possible.
At present, there is no accreditation scheme in place for
privacy and proxy
services and no agreed community-developed set of best practices for the
provision of such services. This PDPrepresents an attempt to develop
a sound basis for the development and implementation of an accreditation
framework by ICANN and is part of ICANN's on-going efforts to improve
the Whois system, including implementing recommendations made
previously by
the Whois Review Team.
Nevertheless, as highlighted above, the implementation of all the
recommendations from the PDP will be time and resource-intensive due
to the scale of the project and the fact that this will be the first time
ICANN has implemented such a program for this industry sector. While
the RAA may serve as a useful reference point for this program, the
Working Group's Final Report acknowledged that this may not be the most
appropriate model for a number of reasons. Ensuring that the
implementation
planning addresses as fully as possible the public policy concerns that
have been identified by the GAC, including possibly developing a
disclosure framework for law enforcement authorities, is likely to form a
substantial part of the implementation work.
The Working Group's Final Report also notes areas where additional
work may be required, which could increase the community's
workload in the
near term. For example, the issue of privacy and proxy services in the
context of domain name transfers will need to be addressed in the next
review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.
*Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN(strategic plan,
operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?*
There may be fiscal impacts on ICANN associated with the creation of
a new accreditation program specifically covering providers of
privacy and
proxy services. The implementation plan should take into account
costs and
timelines for implementation. As the current interim specification in the
RAAapplicable to such services is due to expire on 1 January 2017,
consideration will also need to be given to extending its duration upon
adoption of the PDP recommendations.
*Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to
the DNS?*
There are no security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the
DNS that can be directly attributable to the implementation of
the PDPrecommendations.
While the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers is part of
the overall effort at ICANN to improve the Whois system, it does not
affect or change either the Whois protocol (including the rollout of the
new RDAP) or the current features of the Whois system. The Working Group
made its final recommendations with the understanding that implementation
of its recommendations would be done in the context of any other
policy or
technical changes to the Whois system, which are outside the
scope of this
PDP.
6. Consideration of BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request
16-3 (.GAY)
Item removed from agenda.
7. Consideration of Dot Registry v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration
Whereas, on 29 July 2016, an Independent Review Process (IRP) Panel
(Panel) issued its Final Declaration in the IRP filed by Dot
Registry, LLC
(Dot Registry) against ICANN (Final Declaration).
Whereas, the Panel majority declared that "the actions and inactions
of the Board were inconsistent with ICANN's Articles of Incorporation
and Bylaws" in that "the Board (acting through the BGC) failed
to exercise
due diligence and care in having a reasonable amount of facts in front of
them and failed to fulfill its transparency obligations," and that the
evidence before the Panel did not support a determination that the Board
(acting through the BGC) exercised independent judgment in reaching the
reconsideration decisions. (See Final Declaration, ¶¶ 151-152.)
Whereas, the Panel majority further declared that "Dot Registry is
the prevailing party" and that ICANN shall pay to Dot Registry
US$235,294.37 "upon demonstration that these incurred costs have
been paid
in full." (Id. ¶ 154.)
Whereas, "[t]he Panel majority decline[d] to substitute its judgment
for the judgment of the CPE as to whether Dot Registry is entitled to
Community priority." (*Id.* at ¶ 153.)
Whereas, the Panel majority did not make any recommendations to the
Board as to what, if any, subsequent action the Board should take in
furtherance of the Final Declaration.
Whereas, Dot Registry has stated in a letter to the Board, among
other things, that its "90 page expert report" is "sufficient and
compelling to assist the Board with determining that Dot Registry's
applications should have passed CPE" and requesting that ICANN "proceed
to contracting with Dot Registry for .INC, .LLC, and .LLP. (See
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jolles-to-icann-board-06aug16-en.pdf[PDF,
1.5 MB]).
Whereas, the Panel considered and challenged the current standard of
review employed by the BGC in reviewing Reconsideration Requests.
Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.21 of ICANN's
Bylaws, the Board has considered the Final Declaration.
Resolved (2016.08.09.11), the Board accepts the findings of the Final
Declaration that: (i) Dot Registry is the prevailing party in the Dot
Registry, LLC v. ICANNIRP; and (ii) ICANN shall pay to Dot Registry
US$235,294.37 upon demonstration that these incurred costs have been paid
in full.
Resolved (2016.08.09.12), the Board has noted the other findings in
the Declaration and the findings regarding the Panel majority's
statements
with respect to the standard of review for Reconsideration Requests
referenced above, and will consider next steps in relation to Dot
Registry's Reconsideration Requests or the relevant new gTLDs before the
Board takes any further action.
Resolved (2016.08.09.13), in light of the recent letter received from
Dot Registry and the factual inaccuracies that have been
reported in online
blogged reports, the Board directs the Secretary, or his designee(s), to
post the Board briefing materials on this matter simultaneously with the
resolutions.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.11 – 2016.08.09.13*
Dot Registry, LLC (Dot Registry) initiated Independent Review Process
(IRP) proceedings challenging the Board Governance Committee's (BGC's)
denial of Dot Registry's Reconsideration Requests regarding the Community
Priority Evaluation (CPE) reports finding that Dot Registry's
applications
for .INC, .LLC, and .LLP, respectively, did not prevail in CPE.
Dot Registry applied for the opportunity to operate the new top-level
domains .LLC, .INC, and .LLP. Dot Registry is one of nine applicants for
.LLC, one of eleven applicants for .INC, and one of four applicants for
.LLP. Dot Registry, however, is the only applicant that submitted
community-based applications for these gTLDs.
The CPE panels evaluating Dot Registry's applications (CPE Panels)
determined that the applications did not meet the criteria required to
prevail in CPE, awarding only five of the 14 points needed to prevail in
CPE (CPE Reports). Dot Registry filed Reconsideration Requests 14-30,
14-32, and 14-33, seeking reconsideration of the CPE Reports. On 24 July
2014, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) denied the Reconsideration
Requests, finding that Dot Registry had "failed to demonstrate that the
Panels acted in contravention of established policy or procedure in
rendering their respective CPE Reports…."
Dot Registry initiated this IRP on 22 September 2014, challenging the
BGC's denial of Dot Registry's Reconsideration Requests, as well as
purportedly challenging ICANN's appointment of the Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) as the third party provider to conduct CPEs, and
the Board's response to advice from ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee regarding .LLC, .INC, and .LLP.
In a 2-1 decision, the Panel majority declared Dot Registry to be the
prevailing party, and determined that "the actions and inactions of the
Board were inconsistent with ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws." (Final Declaration at ¶ 151.) Specifically, the Panel majority
declared that "the Board (acting through the BGC) failed to exercise due
diligence and care in having a reasonable amount of facts in
front of them
and failed to fulfill its transparency obligations" and that
there was not
sufficient evidence to "support a determination that the Board (acting
through the BGC) exercised independent judgment in reaching the
reconsideration decisions." (Id. at ¶¶ 151-152.) The Panel
majority further
declared that ICANN "shall pay to Dot Registry, LLC $235,294.37
representing said fees, expenses and compensation previously incurred by
Dot Registry, LLC upon determination that these incurred costs have been
paid in full." (Id. at ¶ 154.)
The Board has noted that the Panel majority stated that "in reaching
these conclusions, the Panel is not assessing whether ICANN staff or
the EIU failed themselves to comply with obligations under the Articles,
the Bylaws, or the [Applicant Guidebook (Guidebook)]." (Id. at ¶ 152.)
Further, it is also noted that "[t]he Panel majority decline[d] to
substitute its judgment for the judgment of the CPE as to whether Dot
Registry is entitled to Community priority." (Id. at ¶ 153.)
The Panel majority did consider and challenge the current standard of
review employed by the BGC in reviewing Reconsideration Requests, stating
that it thought the standard to be applied by the BGC in "evaluating a
Reconsideration Request" should be: "Is the action taken consistent with
the Articles, the Bylaws, and the [Guidebook]?" (Id. at ¶ 79.) The Panel
majority further indicated that, in reviewing Reconsideration Requests,
"the BGC must determine whether the CPE (in this case the EIU) and
ICANNstaff respected the principles of fairness, transparency,
avoiding conflicts of interest, and non-discrimination as set out in the
ICANN Articles, Bylaws and [Guidebook]" (id. at ¶ 88), and that third
parties such as the EUI are "obligated to comply with ICANN's
Articles and Bylaws." (Id. at ¶ 101.)
The Board acknowledges the important statements by the Panel with
respect to the standard of review for Reconsideration Requests and will
consider next steps in relation to Dot Registry's
Reconsideration Requests
or the relevant new gTLDs before the Board takes any further action.
As required, the Board has considered the Final Declaration. As this
Board has previously indicated, the Board takes very seriously
the results
of one of ICANN's long-standing accountability mechanisms.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and
Rationale, the Board has accepted the Panel's Final Declaration as
indicated above.
The Board also notes that it has received a letter from Dot Registry,
dated 6 August 2016, stating, among other things, that its "90
page expert
report" is "sufficient and compelling to assist the Board with
determining
that Dot Registry's applications should have passed CPE" and requesting
that ICANN "proceed to contracting with Dot Registry for .INC, .LLC,
and .LLP." (See Attachment B to Reference Materials and
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jolles-to-icann-board-06aug16-en.pdf[PDF,
1.5 MB].) The Board would like to reiterate that "[t]he Panel majority
decline[d] to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the CPE as to
whether Dot Registry is entitled to Community priority." (*Id.* at ¶
153.)
Further, the Board notes that there are numerous other applications
pending for these gTLDs (nine for .INC, eight for .LLC, and three for
.LLP), which also must be considered. Accordingly, as noted above, the
Board will consider next steps before taking any further action with
respect to Dot Registry's Reconsideration Requests, or the .INC, .LLC, or
.LLP applications.
Finally, the Board also notes that there have been online blogged
reports about what the Final Declaration actually says, yet many of the
items reported on have been factual inaccuracies, which have been
identified and corrected in Attachment C to the Reference
Materials related
to this agenda item.
This action is not expected to have any direct financial impact on
the organization, although there could be some indirect costs, such as
analysis relating to the standard on Reconsideration Requests.
This action
will not have any direct impact on the security, stability or
resiliency of
the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not
require public comment.
8. Consideration of Request for Cancellation of HOTEL Top-Level
Domain S.a.r.l's (HTLD's) Application for .HOTEL
Whereas, Travel Reservations SRL (formerly Despegar Online SRL),
Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry LLC, Minds + Machines Group Limited,
Donuts Inc., and Radix FZC (collectively, .HOTEL Claimants) have
requested
that ICANNcancel HOTEL Top-Level Domain S.a.r.l's (HTLD's)
application for .HOTEL.
Whereas, the .HOTEL Claimants' request is premised on Dirk
Krischenowski's apparent business connections to HTLD, coupled with his
exploitation of the portal issue that allowed parties to access
confidential information of various applicants for new gTLDs, including
information of several of the .HOTEL Claimants.
Whereas, ICANN's forensic investigation of the portal issue
determined that Mr. Krischenowski's unauthorized access to confidential
information did not occur until after HTLD submitted its application in
2012 and after HTLD elected to participate in CPE on 19 February 2014.
Whereas, ICANN has not uncovered any evidence that: (i) the
information Mr. Krischenowski may have obtained as a result of the portal
issue was used to support HTLD's application for .HOTEL; or (ii) any
information obtained by Mr. Krischenowski enabled HTLD's application to
prevail in CPE.
Resolved (2016.08.09.14), the Board concludes that cancellation of
HTLD's application for .HOTEL is not warranted.
Resolved (2016.08.09.15), the Board directs the President and CEO, or
his designee(s), to move forward with processing HTLD's application for
.HOTEL.
*Rationale for Resolutions 2016.08.09.14 – 2016.08.09.15*
HTLD and the .HOTEL Claimants each applied for .HOTEL and were all
placed in a contention set. As HTLD's application was
community-based, its
application was invited to participate in Community Priority Evaluation
(CPE) on 19 February 2014. HTLD prevailed in CPE on 11 June 2014, thereby
excluding the .HOTEL Claimants from continuing through the process.
The .HOTEL Claimants have argued that Mr. Krischenowski's
exploitation of the portal issue that allowed parties to access
confidential information of various applicants for new gTLDs, including
information of several of the .HOTEL Claimants, coupled with Mr.
Krischenowski's apparent business connections to HTLD, is cause for
ICANN to cancel HTLD's .HOTEL application.
ICANN's forensic investigation of the portal issue revealed that the
user credentials of Mr. Krischenowski and his associates, Mr. Oliver Süme
and Ms. Katrin Ohlmer, were responsible for numerous instances
of suspected
intentional unauthorized access to other applicants' confidential
information, which occurred from March through October 2014. Mr.
Krischenowski acknowledged that he accessed confidential information of
other users, but denied that he acted improperly or unlawfully.
Among other
things, Mr. Krischenowski claimed that he did not realize the
portal issue
was a malfunction, and that he used the search tool in good faith. Mr.
Krischenowski and his associates also certified to ICANN that they
would delete or destroy all information obtained, and affirmed that they
had not used and would not use the information obtained, or convey it to
any third party.
With respect to claims about Mr. Krischenowski's involvement with
HTLD when he accessed the confidential information, ICANN has been
informed that he was not directly linked to HTLD's .HOTEL
application as an
authorized contact or as a shareholder, officer or director. Mr.
Krischenowski was a 50% shareholder and managing director of HOTEL
Top-Level-Domain GmbH, Berlin (GmbH Berlin), which was a minority (48.8%)
shareholder of HTLD.
ICANN has not uncovered any evidence that: (i) the information Mr.
Krischenowski may have obtained as a result of the portal issue
was used to
support HTLD's application for .HOTEL; or (ii) any information
obtained by
Mr. Krischenowski enabled HTLD's application to prevail in CPE. HTLD
submitted its application in 2012, elected to participate in CPE on 19
February 2014, and prevailed in CPE on 11 June 2014. Mr. Krischenowski's
first instance of unauthorized access to confidential information did not
occur until early March 2014; and his searches relating to the .HOTEL
Claimants did not occur until 27 March, 29 March and 11 April 2014.
Therefore, even assuming that Mr. Krischenowski did obtain confidential
information belonging to the .HOTEL Claimants, this would not
have had any
impact on the CPE process for HTLD's .HOTEL application. Specifically,
whether HTLD's application met the CPE criteria was based upon the
application as submitted in May 2012, or when the last documents amending
the application were uploaded by HTLD on 30 August 2013 – all of which
occurred before Mr. Krischenowski or his associates accessed any
confidential information, which occurred from March 2014 through October
2014. In addition, there is no evidence, or claim by the .HOTEL
Claimants,
that the CPE Panel had any interaction at all with Mr. Krischenowski or
HTLD during the CPE process, which began on 19 February 2014.
In furtherance of the Board's 10 March 2016 resolution directing ICANN's
"President and CEO, or his designee(s), to complete the investigation of
the issues alleged by the .HOTEL Claimants regarding the portal
configuration as soon as feasible and to provide a report to the
Board for
consideration following the completion of that investigation"
(see 10 March
2016 Board Resolutions, available at
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en#2.a
), ICANN informed HTLD of the .HOTEL Claimants' request that ICANN cancel
HTLD's .HOTEL application, provided HTLD an opportunity to respond, and
sought information from HTLD regarding its association with Mr.
Krischenowski. In response, Mr. Philipp Grabensee, the now sole Managing
Director of HTLD, confirmed for ICANN that at the time of the
challenged conduct, Mr. Krischenowski was a 50% shareholder and managing
director of GmbH Berlin, which was a minority (48.8%)
shareholder of HTLD.
Mr. Grabensee also confirmed that Mr. Krischenowski acted as a consultant
for HTLD's application at the time it was submitted (in 2012),
and that Mr.
Krischenowski represented HTLD in three string confusion objections
initiated by HTLD against applications by Despegar and
Booking.com in 2013.
Mr. Grabensee also stated that, in accessing the proprietary
information, Mr. Krischenowski did not act on HTLD's behalf or in support
of its application for .HOTEL. Mr. Grabensee noted that Mr. Krischenowski
did not use HTLD's Login ID, did not inform HTLD's personnel about "his
action," "did not provide any of the accessed information" to HTLD or its
personnel, and HTLD "personnel did not have any knowledge about Mr.
Krischenowski's action, and did not consent to it or approve it."
Lastly, Mr. Grabensee noted the following recent changes to HTLD's
relationship with Mr. Krischenowski: (i) the business
consultancy services
between HTLD and Mr. Krischenowski were terminated as of 31
December 2015;
(ii) Mr. Krischenowski stepped down as a managing director of GmbH Berlin
effective 18 March 2016; (iii) Mr. Krischenowski's wholly-owned company
transferred its 50% shares in GmbH Berlin to Ms. Ohlmer (via her
wholly-owned company); (iv) GmbH Berlin will transfer its shares
in HTLD to
Afilias plc; and (v) Mr. Grabensee is now the sole Managing Director of
HTLD.
The Board had the opportunity to consider all of the materials
submitted relating to the .HOTEL Claimants' request for cancellation of
HTLD's .HOTEL application. Following consideration of all relevant
information provided and for the reasons set forth in the Resolution and
Rationale, the Board has determined that cancellation of HTLD's .HOTEL
application is not warranted, and the .HOTEL Claimants' request is
therefore denied.
The Board takes these claims seriously and the Board members have
exercised independent judgment in making this decision, which it deems in
the best interest of the organization and the community as a whole. The
Board, however, does acknowledge that, based on the information
available,
Mr. Krischenowski may have taken some improper actions in relation to the
portal configuration issue, and the Board is considering whether this
conduct should be addressed directly with Mr. Krischenowski.
This decision has no direct financial impact on ICANN and will not
impact the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.
This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does
not require public comment.
3. Executive Session - Confidential:
1. Ombudsman FY16 At-Risk Compensation
Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board
approve payment to the Ombudsman of his FY16 at-risk compensation.
Resolved (2016.08.09.16), the Board hereby approves a payment to the
Ombudsman of his FY16 at-risk compensation component.
*Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.16*
Annually the Ombudsman has an opportunity to earn a portion of his
compensation based on specific performance goals set by the
Board, through
the Compensation Committee. This not only provides incentive for the
Ombudsman to perform above and beyond his regular duties, but
also leads to
regular touch points between the Ombudsman and Board members during the
year to help ensure that the Ombudsman is achieving his goals and serving
the needs of the ICANNcommunity.
Scoring of the Ombudsman's objectives results from both the Ombudsman
self-assessment, as well as review by the Compensation Committee, with a
recommendation to the Board.
Scoring the Ombudsman's annual performance objectives is in
furtherance of the goals of ICANN and helps increase the Ombudsman's
service to the ICANN community. While there is a fiscal impact from
the results of the scoring, that impact is already accounted for in the
annual budget. This action will have no impact on the security, stability
or resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not
require public comment.
2. Officer Compensation
Whereas, the attraction and retention of high caliber staff is
essential to ICANN's operations and ICANN desires to ensure
competitive compensation for staff.
Whereas, independent market data provided by outside expert
compensation consultants indicates that current and proposed increases to
compensation amounts for the President, GDD, General Counsel & Secretary,
CFO, COO, CIO, and SVP, Policy Development Support and General Manager,
ICANNRegional Headquarters - Istanbul are within ICANN's target of
the 50th to 75th percentile for total cash compensation based on
comparable
market data for the respective positions.
Whereas, independent market data provided by outside expert
compensation consultants indicates that current compensation for
the CFO is
below ICANN's target of the 50th to 75th percentile for total cash
compensation based on comparable market data for the respective positions.
Whereas, the compensation for the President, GDD, the General Counsel
& Secretary, the CFO, and the SVP, Policy Development Support and General
Manager, ICANNRegional Headquarters - Istanbul, has not been adjusted
since an effective date of 1 July 2014.
Whereas, the compensation adjustments for the COO and the CIO will
establish better alignment with compensation review timeline of the other
four Officers.
Whereas, each Board member has confirmed that they are not conflicted
with respect to compensation packages for any of ICANN's Officers.
Resolved (2016.08.09.17), the Board grants the President and CEO the
discretion to adjust the compensation for FY17, effective 1 July
2016, of:
(i) Akram Atallah, President, GDD; (ii) John Jeffrey, General Counsel &
Secretary; and (iii) David Olive, SVP, Policy Development Support and
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters – Istanbul, in
accordance with the independent study on comparable compensation, subject
to a limitation that their annual base salaries for FY17 shall
not increase
by more than 6% for from their current base salaries.
Resolved (2016.08.09.18), the Board grants the President and CEO the
discretion to adjust the compensation for FY17, effective 1 July 2016, of
Xavier Calvez, the CFO, in accordance with the independent study on
comparable compensation, subject to a limitation that his annual base
salary for FY17 shall not increase by more than 10% from his
current annual
base salary.
Resolved (2016.08.09.19), the Board grants the President and CEO the
discretion to adjust the compensation for FY17, effective 1 July 2016, of
Susanna Bennett, the COO, in accordance with the independent study on
comparable compensation, subject to a limitation that her annual base
salary for FY17 shall not increase by more than 3% from her
current annual
base salary.
Resolved (2016.08.09.20), the Board grants the President and CEO the
discretion to adjust the compensation for FY17, effective 1 July 2016, of
Ashwin Rangan, the CIO, in accordance with the independent study on
comparable compensation, subject to a limitation that his annual base
salary for FY17 shall not increase by more than 5% from his
current annual
base salary.
*Rationale for Resolution 2016.08.09.16 – 2016.08.09.20*
Attracting and retaining high caliber staff by providing a
competitive compensation package is crucial to the organization. An
improving job market will make more opportunities available for high
caliber performers outside of ICANN.
ICANN's President and CEO has requested that he be granted the
discretion to increase the FY17 base salaries of: (i) the President, GDD,
the General Counsel & Secretary, and the SVP, Policy Development Support
and General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters - Istanbul) by up to
6% of their current base salaries; (ii) the CFO by up to 10% of
his current
base salary; (iii) the COO by up to 3% of her current base
salary; and (iv)
the CIO by up to 5% of his current base salary. The President and CEO has
also informed the Board that he intends to also exercise the same
discretion with respect to the other members of ICANN's Executive
Team who are not Officers (which does not require Board approval).
ICANN is in a critical phase that calls for continuity of certain
skill and expertise, particularly with ongoing key projects including the
New gTLD Program, Affirmation of Commitments and other organizational
reviews underway, the U.S. Governments' IANA stewardship transition,
expanding contractual compliance, and enhanced globalization
efforts, among
many others. Each of these projects requires knowledgeable and skilled
executives to ensure ICANN's operational goals and objectives are met
while ensuring that risk is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
Adhering to ICANN's employment philosophy, and providing competitive
compensation, will help ensure these goals are achieved.
It should be noted, however, that previously it had been discussed
that the plan was to only seek authorization to increase
relevant Officers'
salaries every two years. Last year, the Board authorized the
President and
CEO to use his discretion to adjust the base salary of the two Officers
whose current compensation had not been adjusted since they
started working
for ICANN. These adjustments were made effective 1 July 2015, which
is the same date on which all other staff realizes their salary
adjustments.
In trying to better align the timing of compensation review and
increases for all staff, it is being recommended that Officer's base
salaries be reviewed for adjustment this year and each year
hereafter. This
is a change from the current two year Officer compensation review and
adjustment cycle.
Continuity and retention of key personnel during key organization
phases is beneficial to all aspects of the organization. Thus, salary
adjustments provided under this resolution likely will have a positive
impact on the organization and its effort to fulfill its mission, as well
as on the transparency and accountability of the organization. There will
be some fiscal impact to the organization, but that impact will
not have an
effect on the overall current fiscal year budget and will be
covered in the
FY17 budget. This resolution will not have any direct impact on the
security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.
This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not
require public comment.
Published on 11 August 2016
- You Tube <http://www.youtube.com/icannnews>
- Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/icann>
- LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/company/icann>
- Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/icann>
- Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/icannorg>
- RSS Feeds <https://www.icann.org/en/news/rss>
- Community Wiki <https://community.icann.org/>
- ICANN Blog <https://www.icann.org/news/blog>
Who We Are
- <https://www.icann.org/get-started>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/learning>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/participate>
- <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en>
-
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-2014-03-19-en>
- <https://www.icann.org/presidents-corner>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/staff>
-
<https://icann-openhire.silkroad.com/epostings/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.allpositions&company_id=16025&version=1>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/newsletter>
- <https://www.icann.org/development-and-public-responsibility>
Contact Us
- <https://forms.icann.org/en/contact>
- <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/customer-support-2015-06-22-en>
- <https://www.icann.org/about/staff/security>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/contact/pgp-keys>
- <https://www.icann.org/contact/certificate-authority>
- <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-f2-2012-02-25-en>
- <http://forms.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/contact>
- <http://forms.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/contact>
- <http://forms.icann.org/en/contact/speakers>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/press>
Accountability & Transparency
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/mechanisms>
- <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-2012-02-25-en>
- <https://www.icann.org/groups/board/governance/reconsideration>
- <https://www.icann.org/help/ombudsman>
Governance
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review>
- <https://www.icann.org/about/annual-report>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/about/planning>
- <https://www.icann.org/dashboard>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>
Help
- <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dispute-resolution>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr>
- <https://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision>
-
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06mar07-en.htm>
- <http://whois.icann.org/>
© 2016 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers.Privacy Policy
<https://www.icann.org/en/help/privacy>Terms of Service
<https://www.icann.org/en/help/tos>Cookie Policy
<https://www.icann.org/en/help/privacy-cookie-policy>
Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include
characters used in the local representation of languages that are not
written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An
IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many
European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts
such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits
than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the
European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII
characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange).
These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that
provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain
names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only
the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the
hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special
encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is
used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a
series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN
label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol
use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be
displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with
the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in
the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding""
(abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label:
xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and
hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels
and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such
as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160812/0e37a00a/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list