Toda información que se vaya publicando sobre la evolución de los dominios .tel , creados para liderar el futuro, se irá poniendo en este blog. Web patrocinada por TELrural.com
Resolved (2016.11.08.01), the Board approves the minutes of
the 9 August, 15 August, 17 September and 30 September 2016 meetings of
the ICANN Board.
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Member Appointments
Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) reviews its membership and makes adjustments from time-to-time.
Whereas, the SSAC Membership Committee, on behalf of the SSAC, requests that the Board should appoint Jacques Latour and Tara Whalen to the SSAC for three-year terms beginning immediately upon approval of the Board and ending on 31 December 2019.
Resolved (2016.11.08.02), that the Board appoints Jacques Latour and Tara Whalen to the SSAC for three-year terms beginning immediately upon approval of the Board and ending on 31 December 2019.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.02
The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables the SSAC to fulfill its charter and execute its mission. Since its inception, the SSAC
has invited individuals with deep knowledge and experience in technical
and security areas that are critical to the security and stability of
the Internet’s naming and address allocation systems.
The SSAC’s
continued operation as a competent body is dependent on the accrual of
talented subject matter experts who have consented to volunteer their
time and energies to the execution of the SSAC
mission. Jacques Latour is currently the CTO at CIRA, the Canadian
Internet Registry Authority for .CA, a position he has held for the past
6 years. He also is an active member of the ccNSO community and the IETF DNS
community. Jacques has extensive country code registry experience and
all of the related technologies. He has been an active member of the SSAC’s DNSSEC Workshop Program Committee for several years.
Tara Whalen has a PhD in Computer Science followed by a
Masters in Law with a concentration in Law and Technology. She has over
20 years of experience in security and privacy, including working in
the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, as a Privacy and Security Standards Engineer at Apple, and is currently a Staff Privacy Analyst at Google. She has been active in the IETF (intrusion detection working group) and is currently active in the W3C (Privacy Interest Group). She is generally engaged in an operational role around the nexus of security and privacy.
The SSAC believes Jacques Latour and Tara Whalen would be significant contributing members of the SSAC.
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Member Reappointments
Whereas, Article 12, Section 12.2(b) of the Bylaws governs the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).
Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.07 approved Bylaws revisions that created three-year terms for SSAC members, required staggering of terms, and obligated the SSAC Chair to recommend the reappointment of all current SSAC members to full or partial terms to implement the Bylaws revisions.
Whereas, the Board, at Resolution 2010.08.05.08 appointed SSAC
members to terms of one, two, and three years beginning on 01 January
2011 and ending on 31 December 2011, 31 December 2012, and 31 December
2013.
Whereas, in January 2016 the SSAC Membership Committee initiated an annual review of SSAC members whose terms are ending 31 December 2016 and submitted to the SSAC its recommendations for reappointments in September 2016.
Whereas, on 21 September 2016, the SSAC members approved the reappointments.
Whereas, the SSAC recommends that the Board reappoint the following SSAC
members to three-year terms: Jeff Bedser, Ben Butler, Merike Kaeo,
Warren Kumari, Xiaodong Lee, Carlos Martinez, and Danny McPherson.
Resolved (2016.11.08.03), the Board accepts the recommendation of the SSAC and reappoints the following SSAC
members to three-year terms beginning 01 January 2017 and ending 31
December 2019: Jeff Bedser, Ben Butler, Merike Kaeo, Warren Kumari,
Xiaodong Lee, Carlos Martinez, and Danny McPherson.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.03
The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables the SSAC to fulfill its charter and execute its mission. Since its inception, the SSAC
has invited individuals with deep knowledge and experience in technical
and security areas that are critical to the security and stability of
the Internet’s naming and address allocation systems. The
above-mentioned individuals provide the SSAC with the expertise and experience required for the Committee to fulfill its charter and execute its mission.
Appointment of D-, E-, G-, and H-Root Server Operator Representatives to the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws call for the establishment of a Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) with the role to advise the ICANN community and ICANN
Board of Directors on matters relating to the operation,
administration, security, and integrity of the Internet’s Root Server
System.
Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws call for the ICANN Board of Directors to appoint one RSSAC member from each Root Server operator organization, based on recommendations from the RSSAC Co-Chairs.
Whereas, the RSSAC Co-Chairs have recommended for ICANN Board of Directors consideration the appointment of representatives from the D-, E-, G, and H-root server operators to the RSSAC.
Resolved (2016.11.08.04), the Board appoints to the RSSAC
the following representatives from the D-, E-, G-, and H-root server
operators: Tripti Sinha, Kevin Jones, Kevin Wright, and Howard Kash,
respectively, through 31 December 2019.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.04
In May 2013, the root server operators (RSO) agreed to an initial membership of RSO representatives for RSSAC, and each RSO nominated an individual. The ICANN Board of Directors approved the initial membership of RSSAC in July 2013 with staggered terms.
The representatives from the D-, E-, G-, and H-root server
operators were appointed to an initial three-year term, which expires on
31 December 2016. These appointments are for full, three-year terms.
The appointment of these RSSAC members is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on ICANN, though there are budgeted resources necessary for ongoing support of the RSSAC.
This resolution is an organizational administrative function for which no public comment is required. The appointment of RSSAC members contributes to ICANN’s commitment to strengthening the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.
Investment of Auction Proceeds
Whereas, to date ICANN has collected US$233 million of auction proceeds.
Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has determined that
auction proceeds need to be invested in a manner that preserves capital
and keeps these funds readily available.
Whereas, the Board Finance Committee recommends that auction
proceeds be distributed across three different investment managers, and
invested in safe and liquid financial instruments.
Resolved (2016.11.08.05), the Board
authorizes the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all
actions necessary to distribute the auction proceeds across three
different investment managers, which will be tasked with investing those
proceeds in safe and liquid financial instruments.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.05
To date ICANN has collected auction proceeds totaling US$233 million. ICANN
continuously mitigates the risk of custody by distributing investments
across more than one investment management firm. Considering the amount
of auction proceeds collected to date, the number of firms used to
manage these funds need to be increased from the one firm currently
used, to three firms. Through an RFP conducted in 2013 for the New gTLD Program, ICANN
has already qualified three investment management firms. The auction
funds will be distributed across these three firms, in separate and
distinct accounts holding exclusively auction proceeds. In addition,
considering the intended usage of these funds in the near future, as per
the ongoing community process, the BFC has recommended that the
managers hold these funds in safe and liquid financial instruments.
As a result, the organization recommends that the auction
proceeds be invested at three different investment managers to reduce
the risk of custody, and be invested in safe and liquid financial
instruments.
This action is not expected to have any fiscal impact, or any
impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name
system.
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
ICANN Delegation of Authority Guidelines
Whereas, ICANN Bylaws Article 2 establishes that with certain exceptions, the powers of ICANN
shall be exercised by, and its property controlled and its business and
affairs conducted by or under the direction of, the Board.
Whereas, ICANN Bylaws Article 15 establishes officers of ICANN, and designates the President to be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ICANN
in charge of all of its activities and business. All other officers and
staff shall report to the President or his or her delegate, unless
stated otherwise in the Bylaws.
Whereas, the Board desires to set out a clear line of
delegation of authority between the role of the Board and the roles of
CEO and management.
Resolved (2016.11.08.06), the Board hereby adopts the “ICANN Delegation of Authority Guidelines” to provide clear guidance and clarification of roles between the ICANN Board and the ICANN
CEO/Management (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines shall be reviewed
regularly and amended from time to time by resolution of the Board.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.06
The Board is taking action at this time to adopt a set of
guidelines to provide greater clarity of roles between the Board and
CEO/Management. These guidelines, titled “ICANN
Delegation of Authority Guidelines,” identify the respective key roles
of the Board, key roles of CEO/Management, and the key interdependencies
in those relationships. As outlined in the Guidelines, a primary source
of the Board’s powers come directly from the ICANN
Bylaws, as well as internal policies. Among others, these key powers
include: (1) acting collectively by voting at meetings to authorize and
direct management to take action on behalf of the ICANN organization, (2) interacting with the ICANN community to ensure that ICANN is serving the global public interest within ICANN’s mission, and (3) considering policy recommendations arising out of Supporting Organizations, including participating in consultation processes if necessary.
The ICANN
CEO is authorized to act within the authority delegated by the Board.
The CEO may designate key management to assist in carrying out these
responsibilities. The CEO’s responsibilities, include, but are not
limited to: (1) interacting with the ICANN community to ensure that ICANN is serving the global public interest within ICANN’s mission, (2) maintaining open lines of communication with the Board, (3) interacting with governments within the scope of ICANN’s mission and Board’s directives, and (4) leading and overseeing ICANN’s day-to-day operations.
By adopting these Guidelines, the Board intends to ensure
that the Board and CEO/Management continue to operate within the scope
of its mission. The Board’s approval of the Guidelines will have
positive impact on the community as provides additional transparency and
clarity about the roles and responsibilities of key members in the ICANN
organization. Additionally, it provides additional accountability to
the community by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities.
There is no anticipated fiscal impact of the Board taking
this action, and there are no expected security, stability, or
resiliency issues related to the DNS associated with the Board’s approval of the Guidelines.
This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.
Renewal of .TEL Registry Agreement
Whereas, ICANN
commenced a public comment period from 04 August 2016 to 13 September
2016 on a proposed Renewal Registry Agreement for the .TEL TLD.
Whereas, the proposed .TEL Renewal Registry Agreement
includes modified provisions to bring the .TEL Registry Agreement into
line with the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
Whereas, the public comment forum on the proposed Renewal Registry Agreement closed on 13 September 2016, with ICANN
receiving twenty-seven (27) comments, both by individuals and
organizations/groups. A summary and analysis of the comments were
provided to the Board. ICANN
modified the proposed Renewal Registry Agreement to correct
typographical errors and to incorporate additional clarifying language
in response to the public comments related to the RPM
language proposed in Section 1 of Specification 7 regarding
applicability and implementation of applicable rights protection
mechanisms.
Whereas, ICANN
conducted a review of Telnic’s recent performance under the current
.TEL Registry Agreement and found that Telnic substantially met its
contractual requirements.
Resolved (2016.11.08.07), the .TEL Renewal Registry
Agreement, as revised, 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 Resolution 2016.11.08.07
Why the Board is addressing the issue now?
ICANN and Telnic Limited (the “Registry Operator”) entered into a Registry Agreement
on 30 May 2006 for operation of the .TEL top-level domain. The current
.TEL Registry Agreement expires on 01 March 2017. The proposed Renewal
Registry Agreement was posted for public comment between 04 August 2016
and 13 September 2016. At this time, the Board is approving the Renewal
Registry Agreement for the continued operation of the .TEL TLD by the Registry Operator. What is the proposal being considered?
The revised Renewal Registry Agreement approved by the Board
includes modified provisions to bring the Agreement into line with the
form of the New gTLD
Registry Agreement. The modifications include: updating technical
specifications; adding Public Interest Commitments including the
obligation to only use registrars under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation
Agreement; and requiring the implementation of additional Rights
Protection Mechanisms, namely the Uniform Rapid Suspension and the
Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure.
Specifically, all approved registry services in the current
.TEL Registry Agreement carry over to the revised Renewal Registry
Agreement. Such services include Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio
Acquisition, Registry Controlled DNS
Records Service, Domain data change notifications, Whois private
contact information opt-out for Individuals, Special Access Service,
Additional RDDS Data Fields and Internationalized Domain Names.
With regard to the Schedule of Reserved Names, the revised
Renewal Registry Agreement includes existing provisions permitting the
Registry Operator to allocate previously reserved one and two-character
names through ICANN-accredited
registrars via a Phased Allocation Program. However, all
single-character numerical labels continue to be reserved at the second
level.
As part of the adaptation needed to carry over the Sponsored TLD Charter of .TEL to the revised Renewal Registry Agreement, Specification 12 incorporates the language of the original Sponsorship Charter - Appendix S in the current .TEL TLD
Agreement, with modifications to remove the requirement that the
Registry control the name servers of delegated domain names, and the
restriction that registrants cannot define the contents of the zone for
their domain names. As .TEL was originally approved under this premise,
the change will transform the .TEL TLD into a gTLD with a limited set of community parameters. These parameters will become optional rather than required. Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
ICANN
conducted a public comment period on the proposed .TEL Renewal Registry
Agreement from 04 August 2016 through 13 September 2016, following
which time the comments were summarized and analyzed. Additionally, ICANN
engaged in bilateral negotiations with the Registry Operator to agree
to the package of terms to be included in the proposed Renewal Registry
Agreement that was posted for public comment. What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
The proposed Renewal Registry Agreement was posted for public
comment. Commenters expressed their views in three key areas during the
public comment period:
Extension of .TEL Registry Agreement: Some of the commenters
expressed support for the extension of .TEL Registry Agreement, while
others suggested that improvements should be implemented for .TEL domain
names if the .TEL Registry Agreement is to be extended.
Proposed Renewal Registry Agreement for .TEL: Three key issue areas were raised on the specific text of the renewal:
General Views – Some commenters positively noted there are technical and operational advantages to the New gTLD
Registry Agreement form that serve as a benefit to registrants and the
Internet community over earlier versions of the legacy Agreement.
Additionally, there was support for ICANN’s efforts at bilateral negotiations with legacy TLD registries in order to transition to the New gTLD Registry Agreement and the procedural benefit of consistency that will come with ICANN’s bilaterally negotiating for transition to provisions of the New gTLD Registry Agreement not only with .TEL but with other legacy TLDs like .JOBS, .CAT, .PRO, and .TRAVEL.
Rights Protection Mechanisms – One commenter sought
clarity over the language proposed in Section 1 of Specification 7
regarding applicability and implementation of rights protection
mechanisms.
Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) – Some
commenters raised concerns with continuing the unique Registration Data
Directory Service that ICANN’s Board approved in 2007 for the .TEL TLD.
The continued operation of .TEL by Telnic Limited:
Concerns were expressed over Telnic Limited continuing to be the
Registry Operator of .TEL, claiming, among other things that Telnic has
violated ICANN’s requirements several times and Telnic no longer has stable financials to continue the operation of .TEL.
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:
.TEL Addendum to form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement: <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tel/tel-proposed-renewal-addendum-04aug16-en.pdf>. At this time, ICANN is proposing to implement the incorporation of terms unique to a legacy TLD,
such as .TEL, through an "Addendum" to the Registry Agreement. The
Addendum will show the terms of the .TEL Registry Agreement that are
unique from the New gTLD Registry Agreement that are incorporated into the renewal.
What factors has the Board found to be significant?
The Board carefully considered the public comments received
for the Renewal Registry Agreement, along with the summary and analysis
of those comments. The Board also considered the terms agreed to by the
Registry Operator as part of the bilateral negotiations with ICANN.
The Board acknowledges the concerns expressed by some community members
regarding suggested improvements that should be implemented for .TEL
domain names if the .TEL Registry Agreement is to be extended. However,
the terms of the .TEL Registry Agreement set forth the contractual
obligations that must be fulfilled by Telnic Limited in its operation of
the .TEL registry but do not prescribe or proscribe the Registry
Operators’ business model. Additionally, the Staff Report of Public Comment Proceeding
encouraged those commenters that desire to see changes in the business
model of the .TEL registry to contact Telnic Limited to discuss these
matters.
The Board acknowledges the request for clarity over the RPM
language proposed in Section 1 of Specification 7 regarding
applicability and implementation of applicable rights protection
mechanisms. While the revisions to Specification 7 were consistent with
prior legacies, a modification was made to the language of the Renewal
Registry Agreement for .TEL to address the comment. The revision is now
reflected in Section 1 of Specification 7 of the revised Renewal
Registry Agreement to read “Registry Operator will include all RPMs
required by this Specification and any additional RPMs developed and
implemented by Registry Operator in the registry-registrar agreement
entered into by ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD.”
The Board acknowledges the concerns raised with continuing
the unique Registration Data Directory Service that the Board approved
in 2007 for the .TEL TLD. The Board notes the 18 December 2007 Board Resolution
that approved changes to .TEL’s Registration Data Directory Service
(Whois) requirements was based on unique business and legal
circumstances stating, “…the Board concludes that the requested
modifications are justified by the unique business and legal
circumstances of the .TEL top-level domain…” After conferring with
Telnic Limited, ICANN
has confirmed that, to the knowledge of the Registry Operator, the
legal circumstances related to Registration Data Directory Service
(Whois) have not changed. Therefore, the Registration Data Directory
Service (Whois) requirements which were ultimately replicated from the
prior agreement between ICANN and Telnic Limited will be retained in the Renewal Registry Agreement.
Additionally, the Board has considered comments regarding the
continued operation of .TEL by Telnic Limited, including concerns that
Telnic has violated ICANN’s
requirements several times and Telnic no longer has stable financials
to continue the operation of .TEL. As part of the renewal process ICANN
conducts a review of contractual compliance under the .TEL Registry
Agreement. Telnic Limited was found to be in substantial compliance with
their contractual requirements. Also, during the past 10 years of
operation, ICANN
has no knowledge of Telnic Limited experiencing financial or other
operational impediments that have caused a failure of registry
operations or security and stability concerns. If Telnic Limited were to
experience financial problems that resulted in the Registry Operator
failing to comply with its obligations under the Registry Agreement, ICANN can take action to protect registrants and ensure continuity of registry operations.
Finally, the Board notes that existing Registry Agreement
calls for presumptive renewal of the Agreement at its expiration so long
as certain requirements are met. These provisions are intended to
promote stability and security of the registry by encouraging long-term
investment in TLD operations,
which benefits the community in the form of reliable operation of
registry infrastructure. The Renewal Registry Agreement is subject to
the negotiation of renewal terms reasonably acceptable to ICANN
and the Registry Operator. The renewal terms approved by the Board are
the result of the bilateral negotiations called for in the current
Registry Agreement. Are there positive or negative community impacts?
The Board’s approval of the Renewal Registry Agreement also
offers positive technical and operational benefits. Pursuant to the
Renewal Registry Agreement, in the event that any of the emergency
thresholds for registry functions is reached, Registry Operator agrees
that ICANN may designate an emergency interim Registry Operator of the registry for the TLD, which would mitigate the risks to the stability and security of the Domain Name System. Also, technical onboarding of the Registry Operator to comply with the provisions in the New gTLD Agreement will allow the registry to use uniform and automated processes, which will facilitate operation of the TLD.
There will also be positive impacts on registrars and registrants. The transition to the New gTLD
Registry Agreement will provide consistency across all registries
leading to a more predictable environment for end-users and also the
fact that the proposed Renewal Registry Agreement requires that the
Registry Operator uses ICANN accredited registrars that are party to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) only will provide more benefits to registrars and registrants. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
There is no significant fiscal impact expected if ICANN
approves the proposed .TEL Renewal Registry Agreement. It should be
noted however that as a result of approval of the Renewal Registry
Agreement, projected annual registry fees to ICANN will result in a minimal negative fiscal impact. This change has been considered in ICANN’s budget. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
There are no expected security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if ICANN
approves the proposed .TEL Renewal Registry Agreement. The proposed
Renewal Registry Agreement in fact includes terms intended to allow for
swifter action in the event of certain threats to the security or
stability of the DNS. As part of ICANN’s organizational administrative function, ICANN posted the draft Renewal Registry Agreement for public comment on 04 August 2016.
Thank You to Community Members
Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable effort, skills, and time that members of the stakeholder community contribute to ICANN.
Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service end on the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and Nominating Committee.
Whereas, the following members of the Address Supporting Organization are concluding their terms of service:
Dmitry Kohmanyuk, Address Supporting Organization Address Council Member
John Sweeting, Address Supporting Organization Address Council Member
Resolved (2016.11.08.08), Dmitry Kohmanyuk and John Sweeting have earned the deep appreciation of the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following members of the County Code Names Supporting Organization are concluding their terms of service:
Becky Burr, County Code Names Supporting Organization Council Member
Celia Lerman Friedman, County Code Names Supporting Organization Council Member
Vika Mpisane, County Code Names Supporting Organization Council Member
Ron Sherwood, County Code Names Supporting Organization Liaison to the At-Large Advisory Committee
Resolved (2016.11.08.09), Becky Burr, Celia Lerman Friedman,
Vika Mpisane, and Ron Sherwood have earned the deep appreciation of the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization are concluding their terms of service:
David Cake, Generic Names Supporting Organization Councilor
Mason Cole, Generic Names Supporting Organization Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee
Jennifer Gore, Generic Names Supporting Organization Councilor
Resolved (2016.11.08.10), David Cake, Mason Cole, Jennifer Gore, Volker Greimann, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez, Michele Neylon, Darcy Southwell, and Rudi Vansnick have earned the deep appreciation of the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following members of the At-Large community are concluding their terms of service:
Resolved (2016.11.08.11), Satish Babu, Humberto Carrasco,
Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Timothy Denton, Sandra Hoferichter, Barrack
Otieno, Vanda Scartezini, Jimmy Schulz, Alberto Soto, and Siranush
Vardanyan have earned the deep appreciation of the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following members of the Root Server System Advisory Committee are concluding their terms of service:
Jim Cassell, Member
Ashley Heineman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Liaison to the Root Server System Advisory Committee
Lars-Johan Liman, Co-Chair
Jim Martin, Member
Resolved (2016.11.08.12), Jim Cassell, Ashley Heineman,
Lars-Johan Liman, and Jim Martin have earned the deep appreciation of
the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following member of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee is concluding his term of service:
Shinta Sato, Member
Resolved (2016.11.08.13), Shinta Sato has earned the deep appreciation of the ICANN Board of Directors for his terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes him well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Whereas, the following members of the Nominating Committee are concluding their terms of service:
Stephen Coates, Member
Sylvia Herlein Leite, Member
Hans Petter Holen, Chair-Elect
Zahid Jamil, Member
Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Associate Chair
Yrjö Länsipuro, Member
Stéphane Van Gelder, Chair
Resolved (2016.11.08.14), Stephen Coates, Sylvia Herlein
Leite, Hans Petter Holen, Zahid Jamil, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Yrjö
Länsipuro, and Stéphane Van Gelder have earned the deep appreciation of
the ICANN Board of Directors for their terms of service, and the ICANN Board of Directors wishes them well in their future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Thank You to Local Host of ICANN 57 Meeting
The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host
organizer, Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and the Government of India
including Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry
of External Affairs, National Security Council Secretariat, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Telangana and National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI).
Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 57 Meeting
The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:
CentralNic, Knipp Median und Communication GmbH, Afilias plc, Public
Interest Registry, China Internet Network Information Center, Nominet,
Web Werks India Pvt. Ltd., Radix FZC, Verisign, .blog, Directi Web
Technology Private Limited, BNSL, Tata Tele Services, Atria Convergence
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ACT) and GMR.
Thank You to Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of ICANN 57 Meeting
The Board expresses its deepest appreciation to the scribes, interpreters, audiovisual team, technical teams, and the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting.
The Board would also like to thank the management and staff
of the Hyderabad International Convention Center for providing a
wonderful facility to hold this event. Special thanks are extended to
Vijay Ramnath Ugale, Event Manager; Varun Mehrotra, Director of Sales -
Meetings & Events; Gorav Arora, Director of Sales and Marketing;
Shyam Sunder, Director of Convention; Ravindra Reddy, Assistant Manager
of Client Services; Johnet Pereira, Manager of Client Services; Rambabu
Talluri, IT Manager; Anand Prakash Ravi, Operational Manager; Ramu
Dasari, Asst. Manager of Client Services; Mr. Ranjan Alu, Asst. Manager
F&B; Executive Chef Amanaraju; and Gilbert Yeo from Pryde Live.
Main Agenda:
Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace
Whereas, Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement requires registry operators to reserve two-character ASCII labels within the TLD
at the second level. The reserved two-character labels “may be released
to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the related
government and country-code manager of the string as specified in the ISO
3166-1 alpha-2 standard. The Registry Operator may also propose the
release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to
avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes, subject to
approval by ICANN.”
Whereas, the GAC has issued advice to the Board in various communiqués on two-character domains. The Los Angeles Communiqué (15 October 2014) stated, “The GAC
recognized that two-character second level domain names are in wide use
across existing TLDs, and have not been the cause of any security,
stability, technical or competition concerns. The GAC is not in a position to offer consensus advice on the use of two-character second level domains names in new gTLD registry operations, including those combinations of letters that are also on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 list.” The GAC also issued advice in the Singapore Communiqué (11 February 2015) and the Dublin Communiqué (21 October 2015).
Whereas, on 16 October 2014, the Board directed ICANN
to develop and implement an efficient procedure for the release of
two-character domains currently required to be reserved in the New gTLD Registry Agreement, taking into account the GAC’s advice in the Los Angeles Communiqué on the matter. ICANN launched this procedure (the “Authorization Process”) on 1 December 2014.
Whereas, as part of the Authorization Process, ICANN
launched a community consultation process to help develop a standard
set of proposed measures to avoid confusion with country codes. The
measures were intended to be mandatory for new gTLD registries seeking to release reserved letter/letter two-character labels.
Whereas, in the GAC’s Helsinki Communiqué (30 June 2016), the GAC advised the Board to “urge the relevant Registry or the Registrar to engage with the relevant GAC
members when a risk is identified in order to come to an agreement on
how to manage it or to have a third-party assessment of the situation if
the name is already registered.” The advice was incorporated in the
proposed measures to avoid confusion.
Whereas, on 8 July 2016, ICANN published for public comment the Proposed Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes,
which listed measures registry operators could adopt to avoid confusion
with corresponding country codes. The measures incorporated the GAC’s advice issued in the Helsinki Communiqué. Forty-three comments were submitted by individuals, governments and groups/organizations.
Whereas, the Board considered the public comments, the staff summary and analysis report of public comments, and GAC advice. The proposed measures were updated to take into account the public comments and GAC advice relating to the proposed measures and two-character labels.
Resolved (2016.11.08.15), the Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes
as revised are approved, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s),
is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to authorize registry
operators to release at the second level the reserved letter/letter
two-character ASCII labels not otherwise reserved pursuant to
Specification 5, Section 6 of the Registry Agreement, subject to these
measures.
Rationale for Resolution 2016.11.08.15
Why the Board is addressing the issue?
On 16 October 2014, the Board adopted a resolution directing
staff to develop and implement an efficient procedure for the release of
two-character domains currently required to be reserved in the New gTLD Registry Agreement, taking into account the GAC’s advice in the Los Angeles Communiqué on the matter.
For nearly two and a half years, ICANN has been developing and implementing a procedure as directed by the Board. On 1 December 2014, ICANN launched the first phase of the procedure, an Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels.
The finalization of this procedure is the implementation of a framework
containing standardized measures registry operators can implement to
avoid confusion, in accordance with the Registry Agreement, and allow
for the release of all letter/letter two-character ASCII labels
corresponding with country codes not otherwise reserved pursuant to
Specification 5, Section 6 of the Registry Agreement.
The GAC has issued advice on this topic in various communiqués over the past two years including, most recently, the Helsinki Communiqué. Per Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, the GAC
may "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or
prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new
policy development or revision to existing policies." The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the policies. What is the proposal being considered?
The proposal is to address requests from registry operators
to release reserved letter/letter two-character ASCII labels and the
advice from the GAC
on reserved letter/letter labels. The Board is taking action to approve
the Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid
Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes, as revised. By approving the
revised measures, the Board is authorizing ICANN to issue a blanket authorization that allows new gTLD
registry operators who implement the required measures to release all
reserved letter/letter two-character ASCII labels not otherwise reserved
pursuant to Specification 5, Section 6 of the New gTLD
Registry Agreement. The current authorization process, whereby a
registry operator submits an individual request subject to 60-day
comment period and ICANN’s review of comments, will be retired. Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
ICANN
initiated multiple public comment periods and consulted with various
stakeholders on this matter over a period of nearly two and a half
years.
From June through September 2014, ICANN
staff initiated five public comment forums to obtain feedback from the
community on the amendments that resulted from various RSEPs to
implement the proposed new registry service of releasing from
reservation two-character ASCII labels1 for 203 TLDs. Various members of the community submitted comments, including the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), gTLD registry operators, the Brand Registry Group (BRG), INTA Internet Committee (INTA), the Business Constituency (BC), the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and a registrar.
Since 1 December 2014 at the launch of the Authorization Process for Release from Two-Character ASCII Labels,
all authorization requests for letter/letter two-character ACII labels
were subject to a comment period. Over 646 requests have been received
under this process.
Throughout the nearly two and a half years, ICANN notified 1) the GAC
for amendments posted from June through September 2014 and 2)
governments for requests under the Authorization Process since December
2014, when two-character requests from registry operators were posted
for comment. The GAC
had not submitted comments under the Public Comment Periods for the
amendments to release two-character labels. Under the Authorization
Process, the GAC had not submitted comments, but various individual governments submitted comments on requests.
On 6 October 2015, ICANN
corresponded with governments who previously submitted comments
requesting that clarification of their comments be provided via a new
comment form within 60 days; new comments were required to be submitted
via the new comment form.
On 25 February 2016, ICANN
corresponded with registry operators requesting they provide proposed
measures to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes in order to
respond to governments’ confusion concerns within 60 days.
On 8 July 2016, taking into consideration the inputs from governments and registry operators, ICANN published for public comment the Proposed Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes,
which listed measures registry operators could adopt to avoid confusion
with corresponding country codes and which incorporated the GAC’s advice issued in its Helsinki Communiqué.
As part of the proposal, registry operators who adopt the measures
would be authorized to release all letter/letter two-character ASCII
labels not otherwise reserved in other sections of the Registry
Agreement, and the current process would be retired. Forty-three
comments were received, including comments from the RySG, the BRG, the IPC, the NCSG, LACTLD, various governments, ccTLD registry operators and gTLD registry operators. What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
From the five public comment periods from 2014 on registry
agreement amendments that resulted from RSEPs, the majority of the
comments received were in favor of the release of two-character domain
names.
The arguments made in favor of the release of the two-character domain names included:
The introduction of two-character domain names would
increase competition since the current restrictions hinder competition,
in particular for the new gTLDs, which are competing with legacy TLDs
that are allowed to offer such registrations. The current restrictions
to the new gTLD registry operators create a discriminatory situation, which is contrary to the ICANN Bylaws Article II, Section 3 that provide for Non-Discriminatory Treatment of ICANN stakeholders.
The introduction of two-character domain names poses a
limited risk of confusion, or no risk at all, as demonstrated by prior
use of two-character domain names in existing TLDs.
The release of two-character domain names would provide
opportunities for companies and brands to have tailored segmented domain
names to connect with the public as well as provide localized content,
thus expanding consumer choice and driving economic growth, in
particular in developing countries.
There is uniform precedent regarding the release of two-character domain names in the history of relevant RSEP requests.
The release of country codes and names is allowed by the Applicant Guidebook.
The arguments made in opposition to the release of the
two-character domain names expressed two general concerns: the first
concern is related to the general recognition and associated use of the
two character domain names leading to user confusion or abuse; the
second concern is how to specifically protect ccTLDs when country and
territory names are newly formed.
From the public comment forum for the Proposed Measures for Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes,
which established a standard set of registry operator requirements to
avoid confusion, comments indicated support for the release of
two-character labels reserved pursuant to Specification 5, Section 2 of
the New gTLD Registry Agreement overall, including comments of support from the NCSG, IPC and RySG
among others. Comments noted that the Registry Agreement allows for two
paths by which registry operators may release two-character labels: one
path of agreement with the government and country-code manager, and a
second path of ICANN approval.
There was moderate support for the Proposed Measures to the
extent the Proposed Measures allows for the release of two-character
labels, including comments of support from the RySG
and BRG among others. Comments that seem to generally support the
Proposed Measures made specific suggestions about how the framework
could be improved, such as noting that two of the three proposed
measures (registration policy and post-registration investigation)
pertained to confusion and suggesting one measure (exclusive
availability pre-registration period) be made voluntary.
Some commenters took the position that governments do not
have special rights to two-character labels that correspond with country
codes, and that the labels should be released as soon as possible.
Conversely, some governments and ccTLD
operators commented with objections to the release of two-character
labels that correspond with country codes and took the position that
government and/or ccTLD operator approval is required.
Over the past two years, the GAC has issued advice through various communiqués and formal correspondence to ICANN. Members of the GAC have varying views on the topic. In the Los Angeles Communiqué (15 October 2014), the GAC stated, “The GAC
recognized that two-character second level domain names are in wide use
across existing TLDs, and have not been the cause of any security,
stability, technical or competition concerns. The GAC is not in a position to offer consensus advice on the use of two-character second level domains names in new gTLD registry operations, including those combinations of letters that are also on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 list.” In the Helsinki Communiqué (30 June 2016), the GAC
stated, “Some countries and territories have stated they require no
notification for the release of their 2 letter codes for use at the
second level. The GAC
considers that, in the event that no preference has been stated, a lack
of response should not be considered consent. Some other countries and
territories require that an applicant obtains explicit agreement of the
country/territory whose 2-letter code is to be used at the second
level.”
The Singapore Communiqué (11 February 2015) and Dublin Communiqué
(21 October 2015) advised improvements to the process such as extending
the comment period from 30 days to 60 days and working with the GAC Secretariat to address technical issues on the comment form. In both communiqués, the GAC advised that comments from relevant governments should be fully considered. In its Helsinki Communiqué, the GAC also advised the Board to “urge the relevant Registry or the Registrar to engage with the relevant GAC
members when a risk is identified in order to come to an agreement on
how to manage it or to have a third-party assessment of the situation if
the name is already registered.” What significant materials did the Board review? What factors did the Board find to be significant?
The Board reviewed several materials and also considered
several significant factors during its deliberations about whether or
not to approve the request. The significant materials and factors that
the Board considered as part of its deliberations, included, but not
limited to the following:
Correspondence from the Secretariat General of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf to the ICANN President and CEO regarding the proposed measures for letter/letter two-character ASCII labels (3 October 2016)
Correspondence from the Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority of Kuwait to the ICANN President and CEO regarding the proposed measures for letter/letter two-character ASCII labels (12 October 2016)
Are there positive or negative community impacts? Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN
(strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the
public? Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating
to the DNS?
The overall impact on the community is anticipated to be
positive as new opportunities for diversification, competition and
targeted content creation in the gTLD namespace are created, while minimal risk of user confusion has been identified.
It is not expected that there will be any significant fiscal impact on ICANN.
In December 2006, the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) issued a report
regarding the release of two-character labels and found that “taken in
the context of our overall understanding, none of the observations point
to the proposed release of two-character Second Level Domain having a
material security or stability impact on the Internet.” Additionally,
these names are not reserved in many legacy TLDs, which have not caused
apparent security, stability or resiliency issues in relation to the DNS.
It is expected that the release of these names in new gTLDs will not cause security, stability or resiliency issues. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN’s Supporting Organizations or ICANN’s Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?
This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comments were received.
Consideration of the Corn Lake, LLC v. ICANN Independent Review Process Final Declaration
Whereas, on 19 October 2016, ICANN received the Independent Review Process (IRP) Final Declaration in the IRP filed by Corn Lake, LLC (Corn Lake) against ICANN (Final Declaration).
Whereas, the IRP Panel declared that: (i) Corn Lake’s
challenges to the determination rendered by an expert panelist
sustaining the Independent Objector’s (IO’s) Community Objection against
Corn Lake’s application for .CHARITY (Expert Determination) and the
Board Governance Committee’s (BGC’s) denial of Corn Lake’s
Reconsideration Request 14-3 challenging the Expert Determination were
time-barred; (ii) “the Board acted without conflict [of interest]”; and
(iii) “the Board members exercised independent judgment, believed to be
in the best interests of the community.” (See Final Declaration, ¶¶
7.14, 8.70, 8.74, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-corn-lake-final-declaration-17oct16-en.pdf.)
Whereas, the Panel further declared that “the [Board] action
of omitting .CHARITY from the [the review mechanism to address perceived
inconsistent or unreasonable string confusion objection determinations
(Final Review Procedure)] was inconsistent with the Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws.” (Final Declaration at ¶ 11.1(b).)
Whereas, the Panel further declared that “Claimant, Corn
Lake, is the prevailing party” and that “no costs shall be allocated to
the prevailing party.” (Final Declaration at ¶¶ 11.1(a), (e).)
Whereas, the Panel recommended that: (1) “the Board extend
the [Final Review Procedure] to include review of Corn Lake’s .CHARITY
Expert Determination”; and (2) “the Board continue to stay any action or
decision in relation to [Spring Registry Limited’s] .CHARITY
application until such time as the Board reviews and acts upon the
opinion of the IRP Panel.” (Final Declaration at ¶¶ 11.1(c)-(d).)
Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.21 of ICANN’s Bylaws, the Board has considered the Final Declaration.
Resolved (2016.11.08.16), the Board accepts the following
findings of the Final Declaration: (i) Corn Lake is the prevailing
party in the Corn Lake, LLC v. ICANN
IRP; (ii) Corn Lake’s challenges to the Expert Determination and the
BGC’s denial of Corn Lake’s Reconsideration Request 14-3 were
time-barred; (iii) the Board acted without conflict of interest; (iv)
“the Board members exercised independent judgment, believed to be in the
best interests of the community”; (v) “the [Board] action of omitting
.CHARITY from the [Final Review Procedure] was inconsistent with the
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws”; and (vi) the parties shall each
bear their own costs.
Resolved (2016.11.08.17), the Board directs the President and
CEO, or his designee(s), to take all steps necessary to implement the
Panel’s recommendation that “the Board extend the [Final Review
Procedure] to include review of Corn Lake’s .CHARITY Expert
Determination.”
Resolved (2016.11.08.18), the Board directs the President and
CEO, or his designee(s), to refrain from taking any further action or
decision in relation to Spring Registry Limited’s .CHARITY application
until after the results of the Final Review Procedure are known, and
then to proceed pursuant to established processes with the processing of
both Corn Lake’s and Spring Registry Limited’s applications in
accordance with the results of Final Review Procedure.
Rationale for Resolutions 2016.11.08.16 – 2016.11.08.18
Corn Lake, LLC (Corn Lake) initiated Independent Review
Process (IRP) proceedings challenging: (1) the determination rendered
by an expert panelist sustaining the Independent Objector’s (IO’s)
community objection against Corn Lake’s application for .CHARITY (Expert
Determination); (2) the Board Governance Committee’s (BGC’s) denial of
Corn Lake’s Reconsideration Request 14-3 challenging the Expert
Determination; and (3) the Board’s decision to not include the Expert
Determination in the review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent
or unreasonable string confusion objection determinations (Final Review
Procedure).
Corn Lake applied to ICANN for the opportunity to operate the .CHARITY new gTLD.
Spring Registry Limited (“SRL”) also submitted an application for
.CHARITY, and Excellent First Limited (Excellent First) submitted an
application for .慈善 (the Chinese translation of “charity”). ICANN’s
Independent Objector (IO) filed Community Objections against the two
.CHARITY applications, as well as the application for .慈善, meaning
charity. The IO was concerned that, among other things, the lack of any
policy restricting registrations in these gTLDs to charitable or
not-for-profit organizations created a likelihood of detriment to the
rights or legitimate interests of the charity community, to users, and
to the general public. (See IO’s Community Objection at Para. 46, pgs.
16-17, http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/home/the-independent-objector-s-objections/charity-cty-corn-lake-llc/).
The International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
expert panel evaluating the IO’s Community Objection to Corn Lake’s
application rendered a determination (Expert Determination) in favor of
the IO, finding that, because Corn Lake’s .CHARITY application did not
include registration restrictions to charitable organizations, “there is
a likelihood of material detriment to the charity sector community were
the Application to proceed.” The same ICC
expert panel also evaluated the IO’s Community Objections to SRL’s
application and Excellent First’s application, rendering determinations
in favor of SRL and Excellent First Limited. Specifically, the expert
panel found that SRL’s and Excellent First’s commitments set out in
their applications to restrict registrations in the applied-for string
to charitable organizations was sufficient to negate any concern of
material detriment to the targeted community.
On 24 January 2014, Corn Lake filed Reconsideration Request
14-3 (Request 14-3) seeking reversal of the Expert Determination. On 27
February 2014, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) denied Request
14-3, finding no evidence that the expert panel violated any process or
policy in reaching its determination.
Separately, in April 2013, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
recommended in the Beijing Communiqué that the Board adopt eligibility
restrictions for “sensitive strings,” including .CHARITY. (See Beijing
Communiqué at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11apr13-en.pdf.) The New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted the GAC’s recommendation by a 5 February 2014 resolution (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-02-05-en), which, according to the Panel, effectively required that whichever applicant ultimately operated the .CHARITY gTLD
would need to restrict registrations to charitable organizations. Also
at that 5 February 2014 meeting, the NGPC adopted a resolution that
authorized the ICANN
President and CEO to initiate a public comment period with respect to a
proposed review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent string
confusion objection determinations (Final Review Procedure). At its
creation, the Final Review Procedure was limited to the review of
certain string confusion expert determinations for .CAR/.CARS,
.CAM/.COM, and .SHOP/.ONLINESHOPPING (in Japanese characters). In March
2014, via the public comment process, Corn Lake’s parent company
(Donuts, Inc.) asked the Board to extend the Final Review Procedure to
perceived inconsistent determinations of community objection, such as
that concerning .CHARITY. The Board did not do so when the procedure
was implemented in a 12 October 2014 Board resolution (“12 October 2014
Resolution”). (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-10-12-en.)
Corn Lake’s IRP Request, submitted on 24 March 2015, sought a declaration that the ICANN Board’s decision not to include the .CHARITY determination in the 12 October 2014 Resolution violates ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, and also asked the Panel to review the Expert Determination and the BGC’s denial of Request 14-3.
On 17 October 2016, the three-member IRP Panel (Panel) issued
its Final Declaration, which was circulated to the parties on 19
October 2016. After consideration and discussion, pursuant to Article
IV, Section 3.21 of the ICANN Bylaws, the Board adopts the findings of the Panel, which are summarized below, and can be found in full at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-corn-lake-final-declaration-17oct16-en.pdf.
The Panel held that the IRP request was denied in part and
granted in part, and determined Corn Lake to be the prevailing party.
(Final Declaration at ¶¶ 7.14, 8.96, 11.1(a).) As a threshold issue,
the Panel declared that Corn Lake’s challenges to the Expert
Determination and the BGC’s denial of Request 14-3 were “out of time”
and therefore time-barred from consideration in this IRP. (Final
Declaration at ¶¶ 7.14, 8.34.)
The Panel also declared that: (i) with respect to setting filing deadlines, “ICANN
is entitled and indeed required to establish reasonable procedural
rules in its Bylaws, including in respect of filing deadline, in order
to provide for orderly management of its review processes” (id. at ¶
7.9); (ii) “it is now well established that: ‘…the IRP Panel is charged
with ‘objectively’ determining whether or not the Board’s actions are in
fact consistent with the Articles, Bylaws and Guidebook, which the
Panel understands as requiring that the Board’s conduct be appraised
independently, and without any presumption of correctness’” (id. at ¶
8.18); (iii) “[t]here is no suggestion that the Board had a conflict of
interest, and the IRP Panel finds that the Board acted without
conflict.” (id. at ¶ 8.70); and (iv) “[t]here is no indication that the
Board members were acting in any way other than in good faith and
exercising independent judgment, with the subjective belief that they
were acting in the best interests of the community. The IRP Panel finds
that the Board members exercised independent judgment, believed to be
in the best interests of the community” (id. at ¶ 8.74). The Panel
further stated: “[t]his IRP Panel does not suggest that ICANN
lacks discretion to make decisions regarding its review processes as
set out in the Applicant Guidebook, which may well require it to draw
nuanced distinctions between different applications or categories of
applications. Its ability to do so must be preserved as being in the
best interest of the Internet community as a whole.” (Id. at ¶ 8.98).
The Panel stated that “[t]he sole issue before this Panel is
whether the Board properly or improperly excluded the .Charity Expert
Determinations from the [Final Review Procedure] in the first place.”
(Final Declaration at ¶ 8.97, fn. 246.) In considering this issue, the
Panel noted that the Expert Determination was largely based on the fact
that Corn Lake’s application originally had not made clear that it would
restrict registrations to charitable organizations. The Panel felt
that the NGPC’s acceptance of the Beijing Communiqué created a “leveling
effect,” effectively requiring that whichever .CHARITY applicant
prevailed, it would be required to implement restricted registration
policies. The Panel noted: “We make no finding that the Board’s
failure to consider the impact of its adoption of the Beijing Communiqué
recommendations was malicious or intentional. We find simply that the
leveling effect on the eligibility requirements in the pending
applications of the new PIC requirement was a material fact that should
have been considered, and apparently it was not.” (Final Declaration at
¶ 8.73.) The Panel therefore declared that that “the action of
omitting .CHARITY from the [Final Review Procedure] was inconsistent
with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.” (Final Declaration at ¶
11.1(b).) The Panel noted that its finding “is further supported by
the ICANN
Board’s [later] decision to include the .HOSPITAL Expert Determinations
[in the Final Review Procedure], despite those Determinations appearing
to have been less clearly within the criteria tha[n] the .CHARITY
Determinations.” (Final Declaration at ¶ 8.101.) The Panel further
noted that “this is a unique situation and peculiar to its own unique
and unprecedented facts[; and t]his unique set of circumstances created
what was doubtless a difficult situation for ICANN to consider in establishing the scope of the new review process[.]” (Final Declaration at ¶ 8.97.)
The Panel further declared that “these IRP proceedings
involve extraordinary circumstances,” and therefore “no costs shall be
allocated to the Claimant as the prevailing party,” “each Party shall
bear its own costs in respect of this IRP Panel proceeding.” (Final
Declaration at ¶¶ 9.3-9.5.)
In addition, the Panel recommended that: (1) “the Board
extend the [Final Review Procedure] to include review of Corn Lake’s
.CHARITY Expert Determination”; and (2) “the Board continue to stay any
action or decision in relation to [Spring Registry’s] .CHARITY
application until such time as the Board reviews and acts upon the
opinion of the IRP Panel.” (Final Declaration at ¶¶ 11.1(c)-(d).)
Subsequent to the issuance of the Final Declaration, the Board received a
letter on 28 October 2016 (dated 27 October) from Corn Lake’s counsel
“urg[ing] the Board to reinstate its .CHARITY application without”
“[g]oing through the motions of such review[, which] will cost money to ICANN
and Corn Lake, and unnecessary time for all .CHARITY applicants.” Corn
Lake requests that the Board “reinstat[e] Corn Lake’s .CHARITY
application and allow[] it to compete for the domain without going
through the additional time and expense [of the Final Review
Procedure].” (See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/genga-to-icann-board-27oct16-en.pdf.)
The Board had the opportunity to review Corn Lake’s correspondence and
has taken it into consideration in reaching its Resolution regarding the
Panel’s recommendation.
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.
Adopting the Panel’s Final Declaration and implementing the
Panel’s recommendation will have a direct financial impact on the
organization, but that impact will not impact the underlying budget for
FY17. Adopting the Panel’s Final Declaration 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.
Thank You to the Global Multistakeholder Community
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, NTIA asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role, played by NTIA, in the coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS). NTIA required that the proposal for transition must have broad community support and uphold the following principles:
Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
NTIA also stated it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.
Whereas, in the Board resolutions 2016.03.10.12-15 the ICANN Board resolved to accept the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s (ICG) IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, reflecting he proposals developed by CRISP, IANA Plan and the CWG-Stewardship, and approve the transmittal of the Proposal to NTIA of the United States Department of Commerce in response to NTIA's 14 March 2014 announcement.
Whereas, the Board further resolved that the President and
CEO, or his designee, was directed to plan for the implementation of the
Proposal so that ICANN is operationally ready to implement in the event NTIA approves of the Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires.
Whereas, in its Board resolutions 2016.03.10.16-19, the ICANN Board resolved to accept the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Work Stream 1 Report ("Report"), and approve the transmittal of the Report to NTIA to accompany the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal developed by the ICG.
Whereas, the Board further resolved that the President and
CEO, or his designee, is directed to plan for the implementation of the
Report so that ICANN is operationally ready to implement in the event NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires.
Whereas, on 27 May, the Board adopted resolution 2016.05.27.01-04, resolving that the New ICANN Bylaws will be deemed effective upon the expiration the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and NTIA, and directed the President and CEO, or his designee, to plan for the implementation of the Bylaws so that ICANN is operationally ready to meet its obligations in the event NTIA approves of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and the IANA Functions Contract expires.
Whereas, on 9 June NTIA informed ICANN that NTIA had completed its review of the IANA Stewardship Proposal along with the other US agencies, and determined that the proposal meets the criteria set out by NTIA in March 2014 when it announced its intent to transition NTIA”s stewardship of key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA noted and outlined in their report that there was still some work to be done before the IANA functions stewardship transition could occur, and requested that ICANN provide NTIA with an implementation planning status report by August 12, 2016.
Whereas, on 12 August, ICANN provided NTIA with the implementation planning status report noting that: “ICANN, working with the multistakeholder community, confirms that all required IANA functions stewardship transition tasks specified in NTIA’s June 9, 2016 letter are complete, and all other tasks in support of the IANA
stewardship transition are either in a final review stage or
awaiting approval, which will be complete in advance of September
30, 2016 to allow the IANA functions contract to expire.”
Whereas, on 1 October, the NTIA advised ICANN and the global multistakeholder community that the IANA Functions contract had expired.
Resolved (2016.11.08.19), the Board expresses its deep
appreciation for the tireless efforts of the global multistakeholder
community, including the leadership of the various community-led groups
contributing to the Proposals. The development of the coordinated
Proposals across the global community, that met the criteria set out
by NTIA,
and the work to achieve implementation to allow for the contract to
lapse on 30 September 2016, is unprecedented and serves as an
historical record of the success of the work of the community to
achieve a longstanding goal.
Resolved (2016.11.08.20), the Board expresses its deep
appreciation to the US Department of Commerce, for standing by the
long-standing commitment to end the IANA Functions contract, and for its dedication, and tireless efforts as a partner with ICANN and the community to achieving this historic goal.
Thank You to Bruno Lanvin for his service to the ICANN Board
Whereas, Bruno Lanvin was appointed by the Nominating Committee to serve as a member of the ICANN Board on 21 November 2013.
Whereas, Bruno Lanvin concluded his term on the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016.
Whereas, Bruno served as a member of the following Committees:
Audit Committee
Finance Committee
New gTLD Program Committee
Organizational Effectiveness Committee [formerly the Structural Improvements Committee]
Resolved (2016.11.08.21), Bruno Lanvin has earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes
him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Thank You to Erika Mann for her service to the ICANN Board
Whereas, Erika Mann was appointed to serve by the Nominating Committee as a member of the ICANN Board on 10 December 2010.
Whereas, Erika concludes her term on the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016.
Whereas, Erika has served as a member of the following Committees and Working Groups:
Audit Committee
Compensation Committee
Global Relationships Committee
Governance Committee
New gTLD Program Committee
Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group
Board Working Group on Internet Governance (BWG-IG)
Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services (BWG-RDS)
ICANN Board Liaison to the Charter Drafting Team for the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds
Resolved (2016.11.08.22), Erika Mann has earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for her term of service, and the Board wishes
her well in her future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Thank You to Kuo-Wei Wu for his service to the ICANN Board
Whereas, Kuo-Wei Wu was appointed by the Address Supporting Organization (AS0) to serve as a member of the ICANN Board on 22 April 2010.
Whereas, Kuo-Wei concluded his term on the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016.
Whereas, Kuo-Wei served as a member of the following ICANN Board Committees and Working Groups:
Global Relationships Committee
IANA Committee
New gTLD Program Committee
Organizational Effectiveness Committee [formerly the Structural Improvements Committee]
Public Participation Committee
Risk Committee
IDN Variants Working Group
Resolved (2016.11.08.23), Kuo-Wei Wu has earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes
him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Thank You to Suzanne Woolf for her service to the ICANN Board
Whereas, Suzanne Woolf was appointed to serve by the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) as a member of the ICANN Board on 5 December 2004.
Whereas, Suzanne concludes her term on the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016.
Whereas, Suzanne has served as a member of the following Committees and Working Groups:
Governance Committee
Risk Committee
IANA Committee
IDN Variants Working Group
Resolved (2016.11.08.24), Suzanne Woolf has earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for her term of service, and the Board wishes
her well in her future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
Thank You to Bruce Tonkin for his service to the ICANN Board
Whereas, Bruce Tonkin was appointed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to serve as a member of the ICANN Board on 29 June 2007.
Whereas, Bruce Tonkin concluded his term on the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016.
Whereas, Bruce served as a member of the following Committees:
Governance Committee
Compensation Committee
Executive Committee
Risk Committee
Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services (BWG-RDS)
ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Resolved (2016.11.08.25), Bruce Tonkin has earned the deep
appreciation of the Board for his term of service, and the Board wishes
him well in his future endeavors within the ICANN community and beyond.
