<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.title, li.title, div.title
{mso-style-name:title;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.docdate, li.docdate, div.docdate
{mso-style-name:docdate;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1500151506;
mso-list-template-ids:313013780;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1535070490;
mso-list-template-ids:1433717804;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2091196404;
mso-list-template-ids:608330228;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Adopted Board Resolutions | Nairobi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>12 March 2010<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1">Consent
Agenda</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#2">President's
Report</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#3">Affirmation
of Commitments Reviews – Status Report</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#4">New
gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and Consideration of
Expressions of Interest Proposal</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5">New
gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#6">New
gTLDs Implementation – Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
Suspension System</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#7">New
gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure
(PDDRP) - Legal Rights</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#8">New
gTLDs Implementation – Registry Restrictions Dispute Delegation
Procedure (RRDRP) – Community</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#9">New
gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character Requirement</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#10">IDN
Variants</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#11">New gTLDs
Implementation – Communications Plan</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#12">Formation
of Board Working Group on Equivalent Strings Support</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#13">Principles
for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#14">Framework
for FY11 Operating Plan</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#15">Consideration
of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#16">Approval
of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#17">Board
acceptance of the BGC determination on Reconsideration Request 10-1</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#18">Adoption
of BGC Recommendation resulting from Reconsideration Request 10-1</a></strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#19">BGC
Recommendation on Board Training Program</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20">Support
for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#21">Other
Business</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#22">Thanks
to Departing ccNSO Volunteers</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#23">Thanks
to Sponsors</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#24">Thanks
to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#25">Thanks
to Local Hosts</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><strong><a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#26">Thanks
to Meeting Participants</a> </strong><o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<h3><a name=1 id=1></a>1. Consent Agenda <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Resolved, the following resolutions in this Consent Agenda are hereby
approved:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<h3>1.1 Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.01), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 4
February 2010 Board Meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.2 Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.02), the Board hereby approves the minutes of the 19
February 2010 Board Meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.3 Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Committees have reported their activities in Nairobi at a
public session;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.03), reports of the Audit Committee of the Board, Board
Governance Committee, Finance Committee of the Board, IANA Committee of the
Board, Public Participation Committee of the Board, Risk Committee of the Board
and the Structural Improvement Committee are received.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.4 Engagement of Independent Auditor <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Bylaws in Article XVI, Section 3 <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm</a>>,
requires that after the end of the fiscal year, the books of ICANN must be
audited by certified public accountants. The Bylaws also state that the
appointment of the fiscal auditors shall be the responsibility of the Board;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Audit Committee of the Board discussed requirements and best
practices for Audit Partner rotation;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Chair of the Board Audit Committee has received a proposal from
Moss Adams LLP to be engaged as the auditor for the fiscal year ending 30 June
2010, with the proviso that a new Audit Partner be assigned to the ICANN
engagement; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has reviewed the proposed engagement
letter and professional services agreement and recommends to the Board that
ICANN enter into this engagement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.04), the Board authorizes the Chief Executive Officer
to engage Moss Adams LLP as the auditors for the financial statements for the
fiscal year ending 30 June 2010.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.5 Initiation of Review of the Technical Liaison Group <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Review Working Group suggested that the Structural
Improvements Committee consider a review of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG),
to complement the review of the ICANN Board of Directors;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, there are no specific Bylaws provisions for the performance of the
review of the TLG, as the TLG cannot be identified as a Supporting Organization
or an Advisory Committee of ICANN, which are subject to review according to
Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN Bylaws;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 21 January 2010
meeting agreed to progress the idea of conducting a review focused on the
effectiveness of the TLG, and asked staff to present proposals for processes to
be adopted in order to perform this review; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee during its 6 March 2010
meeting considered that due to the relatively low complexity of the review, it
can be conducted by a specific TLG review Working Group, with the assistance of
ICANN staff, in a relatively short period of time with minimal budget
implications.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.05), the Board authorizes the review of the Technical
Liaison Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.06), that this review will aim: (i) to understand
whether the TLG arrangements set forth in Article XI-A, Section 2 of the
Bylaws, to ‘connect the Board with appropriate sources of technical
advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's activities,' are still effective
and sufficient; (ii) to understand whether the TLG has a continuing purpose in
the ICANN structure, and (iii) if so, whether any change in structure or
operations is desirable to improve the TLG's effectiveness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.07), that the review of the TLG will be conducted by a
specific TLG review Working Group and assisted by ICANN staff.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.08), that the SIC is authorized to establish a TLG
review Working Group and adopt all the necessary measures to perform the
review, in consultation with the community, and to report to the Board through
the SIC on the final findings and recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.6 Thanks to and dissolution of: Board review Working Group, Nominating
Committee review finalization Working Group and the Security and Stability
Advisory Committee (SSAC) review Working Group <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review
finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group have delivered to
the Structural Improvements Committee their final reports of activity, which
contain conclusions and recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of
these structures;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review
finalization Working Group and the SSAC review Working Group, have fulfilled
the tasks assigned to them at the time of their establishment, and they can now
be dissolved;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board agrees with the Structural Improvements Committee on its
proposal to thank the Chairs and Members of these Working Groups for their commitment
and ability to fulfill the tasks assigned to them; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee will now provide the Board
with a set of suggested actions to address the conclusions and recommendations
of the final reports of these three Working Groups;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.09), the Board receives the final reports of the Board
review Working Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working
Group and the SSAC review Working Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.10), the Board thanks the Chairs and Members of these
review Working Groups for their commitment and ability to fulfill their task:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>Board review Working Group: Roberto Gaetano
(Chair), Amadeu Abril, Steve Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj,
Rita Rodin Johnston and Jean-Jacques Subrenat.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>NomCom finalization review Working Group: Thomas
Roessler (Chair), Alejandro Pisanty, Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein and
George Sadowsky (non-voting).<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2'>SSAC review Working Group: Dennis Jennings
(Chair), Robert Blokzijl, Reinhard Scholl, and Suzanne Woolf.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.11), the Board dissolves the Board review Working
Group, the Nominating Committee review finalization Working Group and the SSAC
review Working Group.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.12), the Board directs the Structural Improvements
Committee to present a set of suggested actions for approval at the June 2010
Board meeting, so as to address the conclusions and recommendations formulated
in the final reports of these Working Groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>1.7 Extending Deadline for GNSO Constituencies to Submit Reconfirmation <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board has determined that existing GNSO Constituencies should
regularly re-confirm their status as organizations operating consistently with
the ICANN Bylaws principles of transparency, openness, fairness and
representativeness;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board asked existing GNSO Constituencies to seek Board
reconfirmation prior to the Nairobi meeting; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO Council Work Team developing recommendations for GNSO
Constituencies and Stakeholders is still progressing in its work, and
completion of those efforts will likely produce final charters that are much
more effective in linking GNSO-structure operations to the ICANN Bylaws
principles of transparency, fairness, openness and representativeness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.13), the Board extends the timetable for those
reconfirmation submissions to the ICANN International meeting in Brussels,
Belgium.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a name=2 id=2></a>2. President's Report <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=3 id=3></a>3. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews – Status
Report <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=4 id=4></a>4. New gTLDs Implementation – Status Report, and
Consideration of Expressions of Interest Proposal <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas the ICANN Board passed a resolution in Seoul directing ICANN staff
to study the potential impact of a call for formal “expressions of
interest”, and provide a plan for Board consideration in December 2009,
including possible options and a risk analysis relating to a proposed action;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas ICANN staff presented an analysis of the potential benefits of an
Expressions of Interest (EOI) process, and developed a preliminary EOI process
model for ICANN Board discussion;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Board consideration of the model was deferred until the
Nairobi meeting to encourage full debate on aspects of the proposed EOI model,
consistent with advice from the GAC in its letter to ICANN dated 26 January
2010;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas ICANN staff has received substantial public comment on the EOI
proposal, including two public comment sessions and at the public forum at the
37 th International Meeting in Nairobi, with thoughtful and substantial
contributions regarding proceeding with an EOI and the proposed form of the
EOI, raising concerns both in support of an in opposition to proceeding with
the EOI;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, on 10 March 2010 the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) issued
the “GAC Communiqué – Nairobi” questioning the benefits of
pursuing further a separate EOI as it could distract attention and resources
from finalizing the New gTLD Program;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has carefully considered all public comments received on
the EOI;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has determined that the potential benefits of proceeding
with an EOI were outweighed by the costs of potential delay to the New gTLD
Program, the lack of certainty about the date when the overarching issues would
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Board, the consequential difficulty of
synchronizing the launch of the New gTLD Program with the proposed EOI, and
preferring to focus staff resources on resolving the remaining issues; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in the New
gTLD Program continue to progress.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.14) the Board withdraws the Expressions of Interest
proposal from consideration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.15) the Board directs the CEO to continue to work
towards the launch of the New gTLD Program.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.16) the Board thanks the community for all of its work
on the Expressions of Interest proposal, including the collaborative community
work to initiate the Board's consideration of the proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=5 id=5></a>5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the
public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data,
and more;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry
participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to
ownership integration or non-integration;\<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In
particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect
consumer data protection;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of
Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in
which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with
the GNSO policy result; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to
registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there
will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those
acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and
approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy
will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=6 id=6></a>6. New gTLDs Implementation – Trademark
Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that trademark protection
needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD Program, the Board
called for the creation of a community-lead Implementation Recommendation Team
(IRT) to develop rights protection mechanisms;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP Clearinghouse and a Uniform
Rapid Suspension System (URS) that were subject to public comment;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board asked the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to
review the Clearinghouse and URS proposals to determine whether they are
consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs,
and appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSO's stated
principles and objectives;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO established the Special Trademark Issue Review Team (STI)
to review the Clearinghouse and URS proposal in response to the Board's
request;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas the GNSO's STI developed endorsements and revisions for the
Clearinghouse and URS, which the GNSO unanimously approved and then posted for
public comment;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas ICANN considered public comment and revised the Clearinghouse and
URS proposals to reflect the GNSO-STI model, making few adjustments in keeping
with public comment received on the GNSO-STI proposal;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board believes that the current proposals reflect the very
thoughtful public comments received and the tireless good work conducted by
both the IRT and the GNSO-STI; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the Board
supports the substantive content of the Clearinghouse and URS proposals that
were posted on 15 February 2010 for public comment and expects that they will
be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.19), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on the
Clearinghouse proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4
of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.20), ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on the
URS proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4 of the
Draft Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.21), the Board greatly appreciates all of the hard work
conducted by the IRT, and more recently by the GNSO-STI, as well as the public
in assisting ICANN with the development of both the Clearinghouse and URS
proposals in the furtherance of trademark protection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=7 id=7></a>7. New gTLDs Implementation – Post Delegation
Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) - Legal Rights <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, in an effort to respond to public comment that Trademark Protection
needed further consideration in relation to the New gTLD Program, the Board
called for the creation of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) to
develop some rights protection mechanisms;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the IRT's work included a proposal for a Post Delegation Dispute
Resolution Procedure (PDDRP), that was posted for public comment to provide an
additional rights protection mechanism in the new gTLD process;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN considered public comment, revised the PDDRP, and the Board
directed that it be included in version 3 of the Applicant Guidebook; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board approves the concept of a PDDRP, which should be included
in the New gTLD Program as another avenue of trademark protection; in light of
additional public comments received, ICANN further revised the PDDRP, which is
currently posted for another round of public comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.22), ICANN should take the remaining public comment
from the community and synthesize those comments, as appropriate, into a final
draft PDDRP, ensuring that the varying interests of the community are
considered, and include the final draft in version 4 of the Draft Applicant
Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.23), the Board greatly appreciates the cooperation,
involvement and assistance the community has provided and continues to offer to
assist in developing a robust and productive PDDRP as another trademark
protection mechanism within the New gTLD Program and looks forward to this
collaboration with the community producing further improvements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=8 id=8></a>8. New gTLDs Implementation – Registry
Restrictions Dispute Delegation Procedure (RRDRP) – Community <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the New gTLD recommendations from the GNSO included an
implementation guideline that suggested that "a claim to support a
community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that
application";<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, based on the GNSO's recommendation, staff has developed a string
contention resolution process that can in some cases grant priority to an
applicant endorsed by a delineated and substantial community with a strong
nexus to the applied-for string, so long as the applicant agrees to implement
and enforce registration restrictions in the gTLD;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, a community-based gTLD's registration restrictions could include
not only restrictions on who can register in a gTLD, but also name selection,
content and use rules consistent with the articulated community-based purpose
of the applied-for gTLD;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider would
allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding enforcement of
community restrictions; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) was
published for public comment on 31 May 2009 < <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm</a>
>, along with an explanatory memorandum < <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rrdrp-30may09-en.pdf</a>
> describing the procedure and the rationale for incorporating it into the
New gTLD Program. The draft procedure has received little public comment since,
and no comment indicating that it should not be implemented.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.24), ICANN shall publish a final draft version of the
RRDRP in Draft Applicant Guidebook 4.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.25), ICANN shall also consider whether this or a
similar post-delegation dispute resolution procedure could be implemented for
use by government-supported TLD operators where the government withdraws its
support of the TLD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=9 id=9></a>9. New gTLDs Implementation – IDN 3-Character
Requirement <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas public comment has indicated that the requirement for gTLD strings
to be at least three characters would limit the utility of Internationalized
Domain Names (IDN) gTLDs in some regions of the world;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the GNSO IDN Working Group previously recommended that applications
for fewer than 3-character gTLDs were allowed in the gTLD program, based on a
case-by-case evaluation;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as a
result of discussion during the meeting in Sydney, Australia, to assist in
implementation of a set of rules that could be employed to allocate IDN strings
of fewer than three characters where appropriate;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the team completed its work and published a recommendation for
relaxing the three-character requirement in a report for public comment that
included specific requirements for when 2-character gTLDs can be delegated, and
deferred the notion of 1-character gTLDs pending policy issues;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the New gTLD
Program has also been posted for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.26), ICANN shall take into account remaining public
comments on the proposed model and develop a final proposal to be included in
draft version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the Board
supports the substantive content of the model that was posted on 15 February
2010 for public comment and expects that it will be included in version 4 of
the Draft Applicant Guidebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.27), ICANN thanks those members of the community who
have devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of trademark rights
protection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=10 id=10></a>10. IDN Variants <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are affected by
the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, an independent IDN Implementation Support Team was formed as a
result of discussions at the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, to make
recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the IDN Implementation Support Team has completed its work and
published its recommendations in a report for public comment and recommends
that ICANN is to study the usability of the DNAME resource record as part of a
supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track is consistent
with the Team's recommendations;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN
Implementation Support Team for allocation/reservation of desired variant TLDs,
pending identification of a mechanism for delegation and management of the
variant TLDs in the New gTLD Program, has been posted for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.28), ICANN shall take into account remaining public
comments on the proposed model and based on such comments develop a proposal to
be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook;.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.29), the Board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake a study
on the usability of the DNAME resource record as a part of a supported
mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.30), ICANN thanks those members of the community who
have devoted their time and energy to the work on these issues, and urges the
community to collaborate on the ongoing testing of variant mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=11 id=11></a>11. New gTLDs Implementation – Communications
Plan <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, New gTLD Program communications activities began in June 2008 with
the policy approval during ICANN's Meeting in Paris;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, staff has provided regular program updates to the community and
Board, has continued to publish critical information in six languages, and has
responded to public comments in a timely and transparent way;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan < <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.pdf</a>
> that supports the New gTLD Program implementation plan and considers a
full range of global audiences;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN recognizes that the communications plan is a living document,
and should be flexible to accommodate evolving circumstances and attend to the
needs of specific regions and audiences around the world;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN recognizes that one of the main goals of the communications
plan is to inform potential applicants around the world about the opportunities
afforded by new gTLDs; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has listened to the community input about intensifying
communications activities in various regions around the world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.31), that ICANN will implement a formal launch of
communications activities for the New gTLD Program, tailored according to the
relevant program phases and developments, recognizing that the plan will need
to be flexible to respond to unforeseen circumstances and adapt to the needs of
regional audiences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.32), that ICANN will continue to take into account the
advice of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees in the New
gTLD Program communication activities. Starting at ICANN's 38 th International
Meeting in Brussels, ICANN will work with the SOs and ACs to leverage the
networks and design the timeline around the actual launch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.33), the CEO is directed to begin the formal
communications plan for the New gTLD Program when the overarching issues are
resolved to the satisfaction of the Board.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=12 id=12></a>12. Formation of Board Working Group on Equivalent
Strings Support <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, on 16 November 2009 ICANN launched the IDN Fast Track process
pursuant to the Board's resolution on 30 October 2009;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, in the implementation of the process, staff has identified an issue
relating to instances in the Fast Track Process where more than one official
language or script exists within a country/territory, and where requests are
for multiple corresponding strings that are considered equivalent, so that
users of the community accessing domains under all versions of the string
expect that each of them will resolve to the same address;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board requested Ram Mohan and Harald Alvestrand to establish a
Working Group as a matter of urgency to address this topic, and invite
interested Board members to participate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.34), that an Equivalent Strings Support Board Working
Group (ES-WG) is established to review the issues, develop a recommendation of
a framework for resolution and principles to guide staff implementation of the
framework, and remain available for consultation during staff's implementation
work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.35), that the Working Group is comprised as follows:
Dennis Jennings, Chair; Harald Alvestrand; Rod Beckstrom; Steve Crocker; Rita
Rodin Johnston; Ram Mohan; Thomas Narten, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Suzanne
Woolf.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.36), that the Working Group's mandate will end at the
conclusion of the Board's 2010 Annual General Meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=13 id=13></a>13. Principles for Handling Synchronized IDN ccTLDs
for the Fast Track Process <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process on 16 November 2009
as set forth in the Board resolution of 30 October 2009;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in Sydney, Board
members convened the Implementation Support Team to provide recommendations on
how to manage IDN ccTLD strings;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Fast Track Final Implementation Plan states that the limitation
on the number of IDN ccTLDs is one per official language or script per country,
and defines the policy under which requests are processed;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board, during the ICANN International Public Meeting in
Nairobi, requested Harald Alvestrand and Ram Mohan to convene a working group,
the Equivalent Strings Support Working Group (ES-WG) to address instances in
the Fast Track Process where more than one official language or script exists
within a country/territory, and where requests are for multiple corresponding
strings that are considered equivalent, so that users of the community
accessing domains under all versions of the string expect that each of them
will resolve to the same address (hereafter referred to as “Synchronized
IDN ccTLDs”).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG determined that developing a formal procedure to accept
IDN ccTLD Fast Track requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings is appropriate
and solves a real problem for the people in the community ICANN is seeking to
serve by launching IDN ccTLDs;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, there appears to be general community consensus, and the ES-WG
concurs, that any request for synchronized IDN ccTLD strings must solve a
significant problem for the communities that use the scripts, to be confirmed
with sufficient due diligence by Staff, the details to be defined in an ES
Implementation Plan;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG notes that all existing Fast Track requirements and rules
apply for string selection and validation of the synchronized IDN ccTLD
strings, and that DNS security and stability, as well as usability concerns,
must be taken into account;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that requests for synchronized IDN ccTLD
strings must be accompanied by adequate and verifiable procedures to enable
convergence at every level of the domain named by the TLD following criteria
established in the ES Implementation Plan, and to take immediate steps to
remove any divergence should it occur; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ES-WG recommends that if an improved technical standard for the
delegation and management of Synchronized IDN ccTLDs is arrived at, and is
applicable for such delegations, IDN ccTLD managers should migrate to that
standard in a safe, stable and timely manner.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.37), that pursuant to the ES-WG recommendations, the
Board approves the principles identified above for the evaluation of
synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the Fast Track Process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.38), the CEO is directed to have prepared an ES
Implementation Plan for the Fast Track evaluation of synchronized IDN ccTLDs
using the ES-WG's principles as a framework.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=14 id=14></a>14. Framework for FY11 Operating Plan <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>(For discussion only.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=15 id=15></a>15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel
Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM Registry, Inc.
filed an application for an Independent Review challenging ICANN's denial of
ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was
constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out their
respective positions on the matter;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held in Washington
DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness testimony;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority Declaration
with findings;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's Bylaws,
"[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the IRP Panel
Declaration at the Board's next meeting";<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration throughout the
week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed various paths toward
conclusion; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years
following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes to create a
transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent Review
Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws requirements during its
meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICM's application for
the .XXX sTLD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel
to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel
to post the report of possible process options on the ICM matter for public
comment within 14 days, which will enable the community to provide input on the
Board processes. The report will be posted for public comment for no less than
45 days, which will enable the Board to consider the possible process options
no later than ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=16 id=16></a>16. Approval of Location of ICANN International
Meeting December 2010 <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third Meeting for 2010 in the Latin
America region;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as host for
the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals received;
and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has recommended that the Board approve
the budget for the ICANN 2010 Latin America Meeting as proposed on 6 March
2010, without reference to a specific location.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.42), the CEO is authorized to negotiate with those that
submitted proposals to host the ICANN 2010 Latin America International Meeting,
and make a recommendation to the Board for approval at an upcoming ICANN Board
meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=17 id=17></a>17. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on
Reconsideration Request 10-1 <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.43) the Board accepts the determination of the BGC in
response to the Reconsideration Request that the preliminary report was posted
less than ten (10) hours later than the time required by the Bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=18 id=18></a>18. Adoption of BGC Recommendation resulting from
Reconsideration Request 10-1 <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) presented a recommendation in
response to Reconsideration Request 10-1, recommending a change to the Bylaws
calling for posting the Board approved resolutions within two (2) business days
after the conclusion of each Board meeting and the preliminary report within
seven (7) business days after the conclusion of each Board meeting; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the ICANN Board has considered the BGC's recommendation, and has
determined that providing for earlier public access to the resolutions would be
beneficial and is in keeping with ICANN's practices relating to accountability
and transparency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.44), the ICANN Board hereby adopts the recommendation
of the Board Governance Committee in relation to the timing of posting
preliminary reports and agrees that providing earlier public access to
resolutions is an advancement in ICANN's practices relating to accountability
and transparency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=19 id=19></a>19. BGC Recommendation on Board Training Program <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the skills of Board members are critical to enable the ICANN Board
to function effectively in the complex ICANN environment;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, Board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and
experiences;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board is committed to the appropriate support for director
training and development of Board member skills;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge Board
members need to be effective in their roles as Board members;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for Board members
has been positive; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the Board Governance Committee at the request of the Board has
assessed the training environment for Board members and recommends that the
Board approve this resolution.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.45), the CEO is directed to develop a comprehensive
Board Training Program that: identifies the skills and knowledge that
individuals need, to be effective board members; produces training materials in
a variety of media; is conducted according to a regular schedule; evaluates the
effectiveness of the training; and adjusts the programs to meet the changing
Board needs and the ICANN environment, and to report back to the Board on
implementation issues, including costing, no later than ICANN's 2010 Annual
General Meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=20 id=20></a>20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD
Applicants <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to
the marketplace, including competition and innovation;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships
between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and
analysis;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for
innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along
the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD
applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern
about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might
hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing
countries.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an
inclusive New gTLD Program.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through
their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach
to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and
operating new gTLDs .<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=21 id=21></a>21. Other Business <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>[TBD]<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=22 id=22></a>22. Thanks to Departing ccNSO Volunteers <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills
which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge
and thank members of the community when their terms of service end; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council expire
after the Nairobi meeting:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'>Oscar Alejandro Robles-Garay, .mx - Oscar has
been a ccNSO Councillor ever since the first ccNSO Council in 2004<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'>Oscar Moreno, .pr – Oscar joined the ccNSO
Council in 2007<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>Resolved, Oscar Robles and Oscar Moreno have earned the deep appreciation of
the Board for their terms of service, and the Board wishes them well in all
future endeavours.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=23 id=23></a>23. Thanks to Sponsors <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Ministry of Information and Communications; Communciations Commission of
Kenya – CCK, Afilias Limited, NeuStar, Inc., .CO, VeriSign, Inc., GMO
Registry, Inc., InterNetX, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC),
AfriNIC, Public Interest Registry, China Organizational Name Administration
Center, .PRO, dotMobi, RU-CENTER, Nairobi Net Online, Kenya ICT Board, TESPOK
(Telecommunication Service Providers Association), Safaricom, Zain, Internet
Solution, Access Kenya Seacom, UUNET.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTANet (Kenya ICT Action
Network) and Jamii Tours – Shuttle Buses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=24 id=24></a>24. Thanks to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and
Hotel Teams <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>The Board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, the interpreters, and
to the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth
operation of the meeting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLan Events
Services, Inc. Special thanks are also given to Steve Morgan, Kris Van Der Plas
for their audiovisual support. Paul Bevan, Audio Engineer, and Ted Bartles,
Technical Director and Josh Baulch, Technical Support, Yvonne Asonga and Aitec
Africa.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Board would also like to thank the Kenyatta International Conference
Centre and all the event staff for their support, as well the Sarova Stanley,
Fairmont The Norfolk and the Laico Regency hotels.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3><a name=25 id=25></a>25. Thanks to Local Hosts <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer, Kenya
Network Information Center (KENIC) for their support.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Special thanks to:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p>Honorable Samuel Pogishio – Minister of Information and Communication,
Kenya<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Dr. Bitange Ndemo - Permanent Secretary - Ministry of Information and
Communication, Kenya<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Charles Njoroge - Director General CCK<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Abraham Ondeng - Ministry of Information and Communication/Local Organizing
Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Sammy Buruchara - Chairman KENIC/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Joe Kiragu - .KE Administrator - KENIC/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Alice Munyua - CCK Board/KENIC Board/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Michael Katundu - CCK/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Rachel Alwala - CCK/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Eliud Ikua - CCK/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>John Otido - KICC/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hillary Akoto -KICC/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Terry Opiko - KICC/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Fiona Asonga - TESPOK/KIXP/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Nicholas Wambugu - TESPOK/KIXP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Michuki Mwangi - ISOC/KIXP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Mercy Mwasaru - Security Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Stephen Munguti - Security Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Muriuki Muriithi - KICTANet/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Mutua Muthusi - CCK/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Viola Munyoki - CCK/Local Organizing Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Antony Mugambi - Kenic Board<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<h3><a name=26 id=26></a>26. Thanks to Meeting Participants <o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of participants
at the meetings; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialog at this
meeting;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Resolved, the Board thanks the participants for their
contributions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>Glen de Saint Géry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR>GNSO Secretariat<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><a
href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=FR><a href="http://gnso.icann.org">http://gnso.icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>