[council] Preliminary minutes of ICANN Board meeting on 23 Jan 2008

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All,

Attached below are the preliminary minutes from the Board meeting held
on 23 Jan 2008.

The major items of relevant to the GNSO are:

(1) The Board approved the PDP-Feb06 recommendations:

"Whereas, at its meeting on 9 August 2007, the GNSO Council voted by a
supermajority in favor of the recommendations set forth in the GNSO's
Final Report on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs (PDP Feb-06). 

Whereas, the implementation of the GNSO's recommendations would not
impose any new obligations directly on gTLD registries or registrars
under contract with ICANN, but instead would result in certain
operational steps to be taken by ICANN, as identified in the Council
Report to the Board on PDP Feb-06 posted on 4 October 2007
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/council-report-to-board-PDP-
feb-06-04oct07.pdf>. 

Resolved (2008.01.02), the Board accepts the GNSO's recommendations on
contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and directs staff to
implement the recommendations as outlined in the Council Report to the
Board for PDP Feb-06."


(2) IDN cctlds and gtlds
- there was extensive discussion described in the miutes.  Essentially
the Board is encouraging further discussion to occur in New Delhi.


(3) Regarding add-grace period  

(note I abstained from this discussion as the the PDP is not yet
complete, and as I am employed by a registrar - I felt that it would be
inappropriate for me to propose an individual Board member view)

"Whereas, the current version of all gTLD registry contracts provides
for a
five-calendar-day Add Grace period (AGP) following the initial
registration
of a domain during which a domain may be deleted and the sponsoring
Registrar will be credited for the amount of the registration fee (see,
e.g.,
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-07-01mar06.htm);

Whereas, the AGP was originally created to allow domain names that had
been
accidentally registered to be cancelled; 

Whereas, the practice of "domain tasting," by which names are registered
and
then deleted during the AGP, has grown at a very great rate since 2005,
with
tens of millions of domains registered and deleted each month; 

Whereas, it is apparent that the AGP is being used for purposes for
which it
was not intended;

Whereas, abuse of the AGP is, in the opinion of the majority of
respondents
whose statements were collected by the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name
Tasting (4 October 2007 report), producing disadvantages in the form of
consumer confusion and potential fraud that outweigh the benefits of the
AGP;

Whereas, the GNSO Council on 31 October 2007 resolved to launch a PDP on
Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections
to
names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;

Whereas, it is the Board's view that abuses of the AGP should speedily
be
halted, while the positive benefits of the AGP to consumers should be
retained;

Whereas, the positive benefits of the AGP may include, among other
things,
avoiding fraud and monitoring, testing and development of registrars'
provisioning, production and/or merchant gateway systems; 

Whereas, the Board believes that the withdrawal of ICANN's waiver of
ICANN's
non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the AGP
will
substantially end the practice of abusing the AGP; 

THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's
budgetary process to
include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the
AGP,
and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN
budget,
subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee. "



(4) Regarding new gTLDS

- There was further discussion.  Generally Board members seems to want
to get a full picture of the implementation issues before voting.  As
for the GNSO - there is also an issue on whether the Board would vote on
a recommendation by recommendation basis, or vote for or against the
whole set.  There was some discussion about the circumstances under
which implementation options would need to be discussed further with the
GNSO.


(5) Regarding UDRP Provider Application from Czech Arbitration Court 

"Whereas the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has made application to ICANN
to be approved as an UDRP provider, the application was posted for
initial public comment on the 25 May 2007, posts which CAC has taken
into account comments received in various forums and the revised
application was posted for comment on 2 November 2007. 

Whereas the staff have considered the further comments made in the
comment period for the revised application, and has required revisions
of the proposal from CAC. 

Whereas the revised CAC application contains features that are
beneficial and innovative for the UDRP. 

It is hereby resolved (2008.01.06) that the Board approves the
application of CAC to become a UDRP provider, and advises the General
Counsel to enter into discussions with CAC regarding the process for
CAC's provision of UDRP services. "



Regards,
Bruce Tonkin




From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23jan08.htm 








Preliminary Report for the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of
Directors

[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board]

23 January 2008

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via
teleconference 23 January 2008. Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush called the
meeting to order at 4.00am Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). The following
Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Harald Alvestrand,
Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, Vice Chairman Roberto Gaetano, Demi
Getschko, Steven Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Njeri
Rionge, Rita Rodin, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Bruce Tonkin, President and
CEO Paul Twomey. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or
part of the meeting: Steve Crocker, SSAC Liaison; Janis Karklins, GAC
Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison; Reinhard Scholl, TLG Liaison;
Wendy Seltzer, ALAC Liaison; and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. The
following Board Member was not present on the call: David Wodelet. 

Also, the following ICANN Staff participated in all or part of the
meeting: John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief
Operating Officer; Kevin Wilson, Chief Financial Officer; Kurt Pritz,
Senior Vice President, Business Operations; Paul Levins, Vice President,
Corporate Affairs; Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy; Barbara
Roseman, General Operations Manager, IANA; Kim Davies, Manager of Root
Zone Services; and, Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations. 

1) Approval of Minutes for 18 December 2007 

Steven Goldstein moved and Jean-Jacque Subrenat seconded the motion to
accept the minutes of the meeting of 18 December 2007. 

Resolved (2008.01.01), the minutes of the Board Meeting of 18 December
2007 are approved. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 12-0. Due to technical call issues Rajasekhar
Ramaraj and Raimundo Beca were not present for the vote. 

2) GNSO Recommendation on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs
(PDP-Feb06) 

Kurt Pritz indicated that this policy recommendation by the GNSO Council
regarding gTLD contractual conditions proposes operational steps to be
taken by ICANN, and does not impose new obligations directly on its
contracted parties. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the policy
recommendations. This PDP arose out of discussions surrounding the .com
negotiations. Originally, the PDP intended to address the .com registry
agreement. Kurt reported that the General Counsel advised that a PDP on
one single contract was not an appropriate subject for a policy
development effort by the GNSO according to the bylaws so the focus was
changed to undertake an analysis of the terms of all registry
agreements. Ten policy recommendations were made as a result of the PDP.
Staff supports the recommendations which tend to: follow the new gTLD
policy recommendations for base contracts, recommend study by ICANN or
the GNSO on certain issues, or recommend maintaining certain terms in
existing agreements. 

The Chair noted that this discussion is the result of work, which
started in January two years ago. He asked if staff were able to detect
if there were any problems with the recommendations, bearing in mind
that the registry constituency has always been opposed to the terms of
reference, and whether there is any aspect the Board that the Board
should particularly note. He also asked that if the Board accepts the
policy recommendations, if there will be opposition from the gTLD
registry constituency. 

Denise Michel noted that critical points of opposition from the registry
constituency revolved around several issues, which were not supported by
a GNSO majority and therefore, not included in the policy
recommendations. 

The Chair accepted that on this basis, the Board could move ahead. The
circumstances that gave rise to controversy were the conduct of
negotiations of the .com renewal, but these recommendations do not focus
on the negotiations of that contract and are focused on setting the
scene for future registry contracts. 

Bruce Tonkin advised that, having been on GNSO Council at the time, the
GNSO discussions moved away from focusing on current gTLD agreements and
recognized that the PDP could not change existing contracts. The PDP
evolved into recommendations for new baseline agreements going forward
for new gTLDs. 

Rita Rodin asked specifically about a concern that the recommendations
regarding re-bidding registry contracts upon their expiration, whether
the recommendations would implemented to consider re-bidding as
contracts came up for renewal. 

Bruce Tonkin said that with regard to existing gTLD agreements, some
agreements have already been renewed with a renewal presumption in them,
for example, .BIZ and .INFO and followed the format of .com and have
provisions for renewal in them. 

Rita Rodin advised that a registry concern, in seeking funding from
investors, is that certain investment is based on the premise of a
presumption of renewal and asked if that will continue? 

Bruce Tonkin advised that he believed this to be the case. 

John Jeffrey advised that the 'presumption of renewal' provisions would
be briefed according to the GNSO Council work and the staff prepared
implementation plans, and additional information would be provided back
to the Board after the additional work was completed. 

Rita Rodin noted that it seems that the policy recommendations are
intended to cover existing and new agreements going forward but some
elements are still being determined. John Jeffrey indicated that the
Board was not being asked to vote on imposing consensus policies or
changes to existing registry agreements. 

Susan Crawford asked whether future Board discussion of the new gTLD
policy implementation regarding base contracts would include review of
the presumptive renewal aspects of this PDP? 

John Jeffrey answered that all aspects of these policy recommendations
would be discussed in the context of the new gTLD process and the
proposals being drafted for changes to form agreements, which would come
to the board during the implementation of the new gTLDs policies.
Further, Staff will clarify the implementation plans of the approved
GNSO policy recommendations and inform the Board, the GNSO and the
broader community of the results. 

Dennis Jennings noted that while he considered the text on present
limitations to consensus policies to be appropriate and should continue,
there is a discussion on domain name tasting and attempts to extend this
practice may affect DNS security and stability. He questioned if it is
it appropriate to maintain those limitations on consensus policy. He
noted that he is raising this to be tabled and discussed at some later
point. 

Denise Michel advised that the BGC GNSO review working group considered
limitation on consensus policy, often known as a 'picket fence,' and
proposed to re-examine the issue. The Council view was not to make any
changes on those limitations. 

Bruce Tonkin moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded to adopt the following
resolution: 

Whereas, at its meeting on 9 August 2007, the GNSO Council voted by a
supermajority in favor of the recommendations set forth in the GNSO's
Final Report on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs (PDP Feb-06). 

Whereas, the implementation of the GNSO's recommendations would not
impose any new obligations directly on gTLD registries or registrars
under contract with ICANN, but instead would result in certain
operational steps to be taken by ICANN, as identified in the Council
Report to the Board on PDP Feb-06 posted on 4 October 2007
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/council-report-to-board-PDP-
feb-06-04oct07.pdf>. 

Resolved (2008.01.02), the Board accepts the GNSO's recommendations on
contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and directs staff to
implement the recommendations as outlined in the Council Report to the
Board for PDP Feb-06. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

3) Discussion of Ongoing Community Dialogue about IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs 

The Chair advised that this item was triggered by a GNSO resolution to
send the Board a letter relating to the fast track IDN ccTLD process. A
letter had also been received from the ccNSO Chair on the topic. The
letters can be viewed at: 

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/repsonse-to-resolution-07-89-20dec07.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ccnso-chair-to-icann-board-21jan08.p
df

Denise Michel advised that the ccNSO and GNSO have agreed to meet
face-to-face in New Delhi to discuss the GNSO recommendations, and in
particular the suggestion of creating a joint working group on the
topics of IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs. 

The Chair advised that the Board could do nothing and wait for the
outcome of the discussions, but could acknowledge receipt of the letter.


Denise Michel advised that the staff recommendation is to acknowledge
the letters from GNSO and ccNSO and look forward to developments in New
Delhi. 

The Chair asked if this approach would satisfy both parties or are they
expecting more? 

Denise Michel advised that the GNSO request is that Board should create
a working group comprising representatives from ccNSO, GNSO, GAC and
ALAC and participants from other ICANN bodies as desired. The ccNSO has
asked that that action not be taken and that ccNSO and GNSO Councils
should discuss this in New Delhi. 

Susan Crawford acknowledged that this is obviously a thorny issue and as
has been discussed in the past in the context of contractual issues,
there is no such thing as a ccTLD IDN. The Board has acknowledged that
some want to move forward quickly but there is a problem and a lot of
suspicion, and it is not clear, that some would not ask for more than
one. My understanding would be a very limited implementation and would
be an equivalent to an existing ccTLD, if that's not the case and it is
a larger initiative, then the Board needs to understand that. All we've
done is approve a working group to consider ISO 3166 equivalents and we
see the GNSO erupting. Can we be clear on what the ccTLD expectation is
from this process? 

Denise Michel advised that the IDNC working group would have an initial
report posted in a matter of days, which will be the focus of community
discussion at the forthcoming meeting. 

Janis Karklins advised that his interpretation of the GNSO concern is
not linked to the fast track but linked to a philosophical question of
what is an IDN ccTLD in the DNS architecture. The ccNSO has launched a
PDP and this question could be answered in that process. It is important
to engage in discussion with all constituencies, therefore my suggestion
would be apart from acknowledging receipt of the two letters, to
encourage them to enter in to dialogue and engage with other
constituencies in dialogue and come back to Board for a decision if
needed. 

Dennis Jennings agreed with Janis, we should do nothing now until the
discussions start in New Delhi. However, we should follow up Susan's
question about the distinction between the fast track and ccIDNs and the
Board should give guidance to the community as to the limited nature of
the fast track and what we would consider appropriate. 

Dennis Jennings noted that it is a separate topic; it is a fast track
for limited purposes and should not be confused with the general
question of IDN ccTLDs, 

Steve Goldstein advised that all he would vote for is to approve one
fast track IDN ccTLD per territory, but only one for each of those and
they get to chose which script they want to use, if they want others
they have to go through the gTLD process to get it. 

The Chair considered this pre-emptive of the topic being discussed. 

Janis Karklins agreed the discussion is being pre-emptive, there will be
a four hour workshop in New Delhi where the initial report will be
discussed and it may be there are no fast track applications at all,
there may be a dozen, but let the process go and it will be delivered
for consideration by Board in Paris. The Board should be relaxed at this
point, to monitor discussion, intervene if feel going in wrong direction
and leave the ccNSO and the GAC to come up with decision. 

Rita Rodin noted that while not necessarily agreeing with Janis, she
does think the fast track was the issue which is why the GNSO asked to
add a few more people to the working group, the concern being that the
fast track process is going to facilitate a land grab at this juncture.
We need to let the working group do its work but more clarification is
needed. She is encouraged that the groups will meet in New Delhi but
feels the Board should acknowledge receipt of the letter and feels it is
very important that the issue has been raised and the Board looks
forward to the outcome in New Delhi. 

Bruce Tonkin drew the Board's attention to a number of
inter-dependencies, namely the IDN fast track process, the new gTLD
process, and the ccNSO PDP. The first decision on what is included in
the fast track will impact on what is available in the new gTLD round
and there is a concern there will be a land grab of space. The concern
on the ccNSO side is if the fast track is very limited and a small set
of nominated names are identified, the GNSO may go on some land grab.
Also need to be careful whatever you do in the first round of gTLDs as
this needs to take into account the ccPDP process so it may be necessary
to confine some names. There are also differences in the contractual
framework between gTLDs and ccTLDs, which create the potential for
inequities. 

The Chair agreed to acknowledge the letters the question is how much
further do we go? Rita and Janis are encouraging them to dialogue at
meeting. The Chair advised against running the issues together. The
ccPDP can be used to address the question the GNSO is asking, asking in
a kind of a way the GNSO is asking, where does this fit. We should let
the ccPDP solve that and encourage dialogue in New Delhi, at the same
time we want to be careful to send a signal that the fast track will be
looked at very carefully but not draw too much attention to possible
limits before the process concludes. The Chair suggested that the Board
acknowledge the letter and encourage dialogue but not go much further
than that at this point. Jean-Jacques Subrenat suggested that the
minutes or any response would state that the Board would read the
conclusions coming out of that meeting and work on the issues. 

The Chair indicated that he did not consider it necessary to have a
formal resolution and asked John Jeffrey if he could record the
discussion in sufficient detail for the purposes of the Minutes. John
Jeffrey advised that it could be noted clearly in the minutes, without
any action being taken by the Board. 

4) ISC (F-Root Operator)/ICANN Mutual Responsibilities Agreement 

Doug Brent advised that this has been an area of work over a long period
to establish agreements with root server operators. The ISC and in
particular Suzanne Woolf has taken leadership in bringing this to
resolution which is the agreement before the Board today for
ratification. 

Roberto Gaetano asked if there were any other discussions taking place
with other root-server operators, and if so, are we trying to get the
same agreement? 

Doug Brent advised that staff is making those efforts, but are not
currently in any advanced stage of negotiation, but it is expected
others will sign. 

Roberto Gaetano asked if there was any indication that any of the
clauses would be unacceptable to other operators? 

Doug Brent advised that at this time there is nothing to suggest this is
the case, but we may find that this does become the case during other
negotiations. 

Thomas Narten asked in terms of agreement as whole, is ICANN satisfied
with what has been agreed or are there areas for improvement? 

Doug Brent advised that this does not cover all the thorny issues we
would want to cover with operators, but we think this is a good
compromise. It does not cover how would root-server operations would be
transferred from one to another or assigned but we believe the signing
of this agreement to be a good step forward. 

Following on Thomas Narten's remark, Jean-Jacques Subrenat noted that
the proposed resolution suggests that the CEO should seek to conclude
'similar' (and not 'identical') agreements, which does provide room for
different agreements suited to specific situations. 

The Chair considered this to be a positive step for ICANN, and in
reflecting on the early ccTLD discussions, trying to get everything into
the first agreement is impossible and it is better to take what we can
and over time they will become more refined and comprehensive. 

Suzanne Woolf noted her conflicts on this issue. She advised that she
was happy with the agreement for two reasons: it breaks the log jam, ISC
did a lot of soul searching before going forward and the process of
negotiation and discussion was very pleasant and decided it would always
be nice if it was this easy. The initial draft from ISC was based on
extensive discussion over many years about what would be a good starting
point and was deliberately undertaken with a view to dealing with
something that would not be unacceptable to others. 

Paul Twomey advised that in relation to discussions with USG who had
been pushing for such agreements, they acknowledged that while not
letter perfect, it did cover enough hooks and pointers to satisfy those
persons as well. 

Harald Alvestrand moved and Dennis Jennings seconded the following
resolution. 

Whereas, effective root server operations are an essential component in
providing a stable and secure, globally interoperable Internet; 

Whereas Internet Systems Consortium, ISC, is one of twelve global root
server operators and the first to enter into an agreement with ICANN; 

Whereas this MRA outlines a structure and description of duties and
expectations, dispute resolution, and interchange of technical
information between ISC and ICANN; 

Whereas formalized expectations between ICANN and root operators will
result in a wider understanding of the key operational and stability
issues of most concern to the root operator community and the Internet
community as a whole; 

Whereas this MRA is another important step in coordinating the key
entities in providing domain name service, and ensuring that mutual
accountabilities are documented and transparent; 

It is hereby resolved (2008.01.03) that the ISC/ICANN Mutual
Responsibilities Agreement is approved. It is further resolved that
ICANN's CEO should seek to conclude similar agreements with other root
server operators. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. The Chair congratulated all of the staff and
other parties involved in the negotiations. 

5) Proposals to Address Domain Tasting , and 

6) Compliance Report on Network Solutions' Domain Reservation Activities


Bruce Tonkin recused himself from the discussion and dropped off the
call during the discussion of items 5 & 6 due to potential conflict of
interest. Kurt Pritz indicated that tasting is a practice that has grown
over the years and that many recent discussions and writings demonstrate
that the Board is already well versed on the related issues. Kurt
indicated that ICANN has collected some information that a few parties
have taken the practice to its logical conclusion, and operate
exclusively on this model - deleting as much as 95.5% of names
registered within the five-day grace period. Others exercise degrees of
restraint. There are a spread percentage of names deleted in the grace
period across all registrars that ranges from 0% to 99.5%. ICANN has had
many discussions and consultations on this issue. It was proposed that
ICANN charged a transaction fee on add-grace deletes in the 2004-2005
budget but there was substantial criticism that such a fee would be
de-facto policy making by ICANN staff. Recently the GNSO voted to
recommend that staff take action to change its transaction fee to change
in for tasting deletes. If ICANN changed transaction fee in this manner,
most think practice would cease. The vote represents Supporting
Organization policy support for alternative budget. 

The staff paper discusses three options for addressing tasting, to
eliminate the practice. These are three options that have been discussed
recently in many recent writings describing the tasting practice and its
effects. As discussed in the GNSO report and elsewhere, there are
basically three options that could be used to attack domain tasting: (1)
ICANN could revise its registrar-level transaction fee (the current rate
is US$0.20, which is subject to raise as the contracted rate is US$0.25)
to cover all new registrations and discontinue the exemption for
"tasted" domains, (2) registries could impose a "restocking" fee for
disproportionate domain deletions, or (3) ICANN could establish a new
"policy" effectively deleting the add grace period policy in the
registry agreements. 

Revising the registrar fees would be discussed with the community and
specifically with registrars whose approval would be sought in
accordance with the 2/3 requirements relating to approval of the ICANN
budget by the registrars. Imposing a registry level restocking fee such
as .org has implemented in its registry, is problematic because pricing
and imposition of fees for registry services is considered as outside
that "picket fence" that describes constraints on consensus policy. A
consensus or temporary policy to delete the registry agreement
contractual provision that specifies the add-grace period might not be
an effective means of eliminating the practice. Tasting could still be
offered as a short-term pricing or introductory price discounts even if
the five-day period did not exist. 

Susan Crawford noted that she had been consulting with parties involved
with and concerned with tasting and watching the Board discussion and
the points of view discussed. In light of this, she circulated a
resolution for the Board to consider that suggested that the Board take
an emergency step to impose a fee on names deleted during the add grace
period (AGP). This could be accomplished in the regular budget cycle. In
order to expedite implementation, Susan proposed the Board adopt a
resolution today as an emergency policy focused on the impact on
security and stability and relating it to the recent service introduced
by Network Solutions. 

With regard to the proposed resolution, Jean-Jacques Subrenat thought it
was not absolutely necessary to include the reference to 'security and
stability'. Citing his understanding of the urgency for the Board to
take such a motion, he considered however that these practices under
scrutiny do not in a significant way endanger security and stability, he
suggested ICANN drop the reference to security and stability. 

Paul Twomey suggested that the resolution should encourage further
exploration of the issue rather than reach a conclusion because we need
to give at least 21 days public notice on such a proposition, and the
ICANN Board should not agree that the fee be imposed until after public
comment. Dennis Jennings and Steve Goldstein suggested additional
proposed changes to the language. 

John Jeffrey advised that any attempt to invoke consensus policy would
need to comply with bylaws. Resolutions to address tasting by invoking
the consensus (or temporary) policy provisions of ICANN's registry or
registrar agreements would have to comply with both the terms of those
agreements, and with ICANN's Bylaws.  Bylaws Article III, Section 6, for
example, requires that "With respect to any policies that are being
considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the
operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of
any fees or charges, ICANN shall [...] provide public notice on the
Website explaining what policies are being considered for adoption and
why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any
action by the Board ..."
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III-6>. 

Susan Crawford agreed with changes to her proposed resolution by
Jean-Jacques, Dennis Jennings, Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey. 

Janis Karklins advised that during the last GAC call there was a request
to engage with the Board on domain name tasting in New Delhi, and he
will be requesting a staff briefing for the GAC as well. 

The Chair asked in the context of the problem the registry and registrar
agreements, and under the bylaws, if the Board is able to do this and
make such a resolution. 

Susan Crawford considered that the Board adopts lots of resolutions like
this, the "whereas" clauses identify scope, issues and what ICANN is
encouraging through a budget process that we think will address tasting.
She indicated that ICANN is not adopting a policy, but are directing
staff to take actions in compliance with the existing budget process. 

The Chair considered the next general issue is the reference to the
issue of the NSI practice, and asked whether it is clear that that
practice will be addressed by this approach? 

Kurt Pritz advised that the NSI practice is enabled by the AGP: putting
the name on hold for 5 days. If NSI is required to pay a transaction fee
then it is general opinion that the practice would end. John Jeffrey
confirmed that in conversations with NSI, a representative had indicated
that the service had already been revised since it was initiated, and
also that if ICANN were to impose a fee for the AGP than they would
likely roll back the service. 

The Chair asked for further developments on the NSI situation. 

Kurt Pritz advised that ICANN wrote to NSI to investigate the practice
and determine if the practice is in violation of the RAA. NSI had
already amended the practice prior to that writing to bring it into
compliance with the RAA. These were essentially nuances to the initial
version of the practices - in essence, it has the same effect. There may
be one more change to the practice to bring it into RAA compliance. 

Steve Crocker advised that SSAC had spent a lot of time thinking about
this and he made two observations. The AGP is the connective tissue
between NSI's goals in the new service and their ability to offer the
service, but it is not the right issue. Information supplied by the user
when checking name availability disadvantages the user in an unexpected
way and when exposed a registrant would not want the registrar to
operate in this way. Raising the price on five-day registrations is a
pragmatic approach but it does not get to the core value underlying
this. We may feel good about the fee but it does not get to the core of
what's going on. We should not casually drive by and address a serious
underlying issue with the fee. Regarding other ways to eliminate
tasting, removing the AGP as a registry contract requirement would not
necessarily be effective because a registry might choose to offer some
fee discount period for whatever reason that would effectively replicate
the AGP. Therefore, although ICANN might remove the AGP as a
requirement, it is not assured that this would remove this as an option.
If the transaction fee is imposed on add-grace deletes ICANN could
subsidize costs resulting from typos or fraud. 

Steve continued that the dialogue we're having has been about imposing a
fee during the AGP, another option is we simply stop defining AGP:
taking away any recognition of it as a separate type of transaction.
Everything gets simpler if we remove the AGP as having any special
meaning or purpose. The NSI situation is distinct from other uses of the
AGP and depends on the AGP for efficiency but that is not the only
example of a registrar or entity taking advantage of information
supplied by customer. Steve's perspective on AGP is that we should stop
subsidizing the practice and the other issues will be resolved. 

The Chair asked Steve his opinion of Susan's resolution. Steve Crocker
responded that he is sympathetic to adopting the resolution, and also
agreed with Bruce Tonkin that it would be very difficult to declare an
emergency policy since AGP has been actively practiced for three years.
He also pointed out that what NSI is doing is qualitatively different
from what others have been doing. 

The Chair considered that it might be, that tasters are prepared to pay
the transaction fee, and, if that is the case, we may consider a
resolution that addresses the issue of front running. 

Harald Alvestrand noted that there are two different bad results that
have been discussed here: front running or capturing names from
registrants, and free registration using AGP. Action taken to fix one of
them is a good thing, but we should not forget that both issues should
be addressed. 

Roberto Gaetano reflected on Susan's motion and the 3 alternatives. He
is not enthusiastic about ICANN imposing a fee on a registration of
domain names even if deleted; however, it appears to be the best or only
possible option. For the reasons stated earlier, Roberto would not
support the other two options. ICANN may step outside its authority with
requiring registries to impose fees and eliminating the AGP in the
registry agreements may not be effective. Taking an ineffective action
may be perceived badly. I believe we need to put in place some actions
and messages to explain these actions to anticipate misperceptions. We
need make it clear that we take this financial measure not in a
relationship to a financial perspective of profit or loss but simply as
the best way in order to cure problem for certain large parts of the
Internet community. We need a strong statement of the negative aspects
that the current practice entails and consequences of letting this
continue without attempting to stop it. We will see more creative
solutions than NSI's which may have effects worse than what we are
trying to cure. I support the option that follows a proposal in the
budget and in favor of Susan's motion but we need to enrich our action
by communicating clearly to the community why we are doing this and to
anticipate the negative and positive reactions. This communication
should take place when we present the budget and make it obvious to the
community that we are not imposing additional fees on registrants, that
this would not result in an increase in revenue to ICANN. 

The Chair requested clean wording of a reworked resolution. 

Susan Crawford moved and Steve Goldstein seconded the adoption of the
following resolution: 

Whereas, the current version of all gTLD registry contracts provides for
a
five-calendar-day Add Grace period (AGP) following the initial
registration
of a domain during which a domain may be deleted and the sponsoring
Registrar will be credited for the amount of the registration fee (see,
e.g.,
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-07-01mar06.htm);

Whereas, the AGP was originally created to allow domain names that had
been
accidentally registered to be cancelled; 

Whereas, the practice of "domain tasting," by which names are registered
and
then deleted during the AGP, has grown at a very great rate since 2005,
with
tens of millions of domains registered and deleted each month; 

Whereas, it is apparent that the AGP is being used for purposes for
which it
was not intended;

Whereas, abuse of the AGP is, in the opinion of the majority of
respondents
whose statements were collected by the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name
Tasting (4 October 2007 report), producing disadvantages in the form of
consumer confusion and potential fraud that outweigh the benefits of the
AGP;

Whereas, the GNSO Council on 31 October 2007 resolved to launch a PDP on
Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections
to
names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;

Whereas, it is the Board's view that abuses of the AGP should speedily
be
halted, while the positive benefits of the AGP to consumers should be
retained;

Whereas, the positive benefits of the AGP may include, among other
things,
avoiding fraud and monitoring, testing and development of registrars'
provisioning, production and/or merchant gateway systems; 

Whereas, the Board believes that the withdrawal of ICANN's waiver of
ICANN's
non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the AGP
will
substantially end the practice of abusing the AGP; 

THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's
budgetary process to
include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the
AGP,
and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN
budget,
subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 13-0. Bruce Tonkin abstained from voting on this
item. 

7) Memoranda of Understanding with the Institute for Information
Security Issues (IISI) at the Lomonosov Moscow State University and with
Russian Association of Networks and Services (RANS) 

Theresa Swinehart advised that the proposed MOUs are part of ICANN's
continuing effort to have non-binding partnering arrangements with
private in intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments
and local Internet communities. Other similar MOUs signed to date
include CITEL and UNESQA, and there are others being considered. 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat noted that it might be more appropriate to start
chapter two of the RANS MOU with the word "mechanism" rather than
"mechanics". 

Steve Goldstein moved and Jean-Jacques Subrenat seconded the adoption of
the following resolution: 

Whereas, ICANN has developed a collaborative program with private and
intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments and local
Internet communities. 

Whereas, ICANN staff has engaged with respective organizations both
globally and regionally. 

Whereas, organizations have expressed an interest to enter into
non-binding MoUs or cooperative agreements with ICANN to highlight
cooperation. 

Resolved (2008.01.05), ICANN's CEO is authorized to enter into the MoUs
with the Institute for Information Security Issues (IISI) to the
Lomonosov Moscow State University and the Russian Association of
Networks and Services, (RANS.) 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

Steven Goldstein thanked Veni Markovski for his hard work on this and
Janis Karklins advised that the GAC is expecting representation from the
Russians at meetings on Saturday and Sunday relating to IDNs. 

8) GNSO Recommendations on New gTLDs 

Kurt Pritz advised that the paper described the recent accomplishments
by staff for the Board to review and there is a list of papers to
facilitate the Board discussion. We're going to continue to provide the
papers to the Board and reformulate those with a view to providing
similar information to the community. There is also a technical paper to
be released. Staff considers that the task is to clarify these issues
for the Board and in the Executive Committee meeting staff developed a
matrix to compartmentalize all of the issues. It will describe the
implementability of each and accomplishments against the schedule. We
think that compartmentalizing issues in that way will crystallize into
four or five recommendations that require discussion and can be
discussed in one or two meetings in digestible formats. 

Susan Crawford acknowledged the hard work done on implementation. With
regard to the tricky moral, public policy and rights of individuals she
voiced concern that these recommendations are unworkable. She advised
that she will continue expressing those concerns and asked if the Board
will be voting on the recommendations as a package or will the
recommendations be considered one by one when it comes to voting. 

Rita Rodin advised that there had been a discussion about this by the
Executive Committee, and the Board passed a resolution to develop papers
on implementation. We now have papers prepared by Kurt and staff, but
we're still not coming up with the complete picture on the workability
of issues. What we heard at the Executive Committee level was a series
of positions from the staff with Paul's input and the Board will discuss
these together. 

The Chair raised two concerns: with regard to publicity, the Board needs
to make clear where we are in terms of investigating implementation. The
decision in Los Angeles was to investigate implementation before
adopting the policy. We need to keep the GNSO and the rest of the
community informed and that's where the matrix idea came from. Second
thing is when do we get to grips, as a Board, on an issue-by-issue
basis. 

Paul Twomey advised that a group of staff spent considerable time on
this recently and there are a number of inter-related issues and if you
take a position on one it potentially effects two or three other
recommendations. Staff is working hard on what are the implementation
issues and intend to bring them to the Board as a whole to get a sense
of the effects. He is not against point-by-point consideration by the
Board, but suggested it would be better to have the discussion as a
piece of the whole. 

The Chair reflected that it would be difficult if we get a package and
can't change it because if you do the ball will unravel. He asked if
there is a point where we need to go back to the GNSO to change policy,
or is that actually happening. 

Paul Twomey advised that he expected that the community could respond to
proposed implementation, whether it goes back to the GNSO he is not
sure. Understanding the point the Chair is making, he reflected that
he's not saying to take it as a whole, but just wanted the Board to be
aware that there are interdependencies. What is clear is that he feels
it would be difficult for the Board to approve policy without seeing the
difficulties of implementation; they need to be seen together. 

Rita Rodin agreed that it is a chicken and egg scenario and we need to
understand on the whole what's implementable. It would be possible to
consult with the GNSO if the staff suggests some aspects are weak. 

Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Board should try to allocate a chunk of
time in New Delhi to discuss the contentious issues so the Board is
aware of the considerations. He considered that if consistent with
policy recommendations but staff proposed a specific implementation it
is a public comment process rather than GNSO formal response; if we want
to change a policy recommendation we would need to consult the GNSO more
formally. 

The Chair noted what Paul and Kurt have said during the discussion but
will not be able to take this issue further at this time. 

9) UDRP Provider Application from Czech Arbitration Court 

John Jeffrey advised that staff is recommending that the Board approve
the application from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) to be UDRP
provider and reminded the Board regarding the recent discussions
relating to CAC. 

The Chair noted that this has the support of the IP Constituency and
changes proposed in the UDRP bylaws. 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat asked about the number of languages the service
could be provided in and was advised that it is most European languages
with the later addition of some Asian 

Rita Rodin moved and Steve Goldstein seconded the motion to adopt the
following resolution: 

Whereas the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has made application to ICANN
to be approved as an UDRP provider, the application was posted for
initial public comment on the 25 May 2007, posts which CAC has taken
into account comments received in various forums and the revised
application was posted for comment on 2 November 2007. 

Whereas the staff have considered the further comments made in the
comment period for the revised application, and has required revisions
of the proposal from CAC. 

Whereas the revised CAC application contains features that are
beneficial and innovative for the UDRP. 

It is hereby resolved (2008.01.06) that the Board approves the
application of CAC to become a UDRP provider, and advises the General
Counsel to enter into discussions with CAC regarding the process for
CAC's provision of UDRP services. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

10) Update on Status of Bylaws-Mandated Reviews 

Denise Michel gave a brief update on the status of the Bylaws-Mandated
Reviews and the board agreed to take this up again at the next Board
Meeting and offline. 

11) Board Governance Committee Recommendations on Appointment of Chair
and Members of ALAC Review Working Group 

Information from BGC Meeting 16 January to be provided during Board
Meeting 

Roberto Gaetano advised that the proposed membership of the ALAC Review
Working group is Harald Alvestrand, Karl Auerbach, Vittorio Bertola,
Trisha Drakes, Thomas Narten, Nii Quaynor and Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
Trisha Drakes is proposed as the Chair of the working group. 

The Chair proposed a motion that the Board appoints Trisha Drakes as the
Chair of the ALAC Review Working Group, which also includes Harald
Alvestrand, Karl Auerbach, Vittoria Bertola, Trisha Drakes, Thomas
Narten, Nii Quaynor and Jean-Jacques Subrenat. 

This motion was moved by Steven Goldstein and seconded by Susan
Crawford. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

12) Board Governance Committee Recommendation on approval of Contractor
for ALAC Review Working Group 

Roberto Gaetano advised that the consultant recommended by the BGC to
undertake the ALAC review is Westlake Consulting and requested the Board
approve this recommendation. 

Roberto Gaetano moved and Jean-Jacques Subrenat seconded this motion. 

It is hereby resolved (2008.01.07) that the CEO and President be
authorized to negotiate contract with Westlake Consulting to conduct
review of ALAC. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

13) Board Governance Committee Recommendation on dissolution of Board
Meetings Committee 

Roberto Gaetano recalled that the dissolution of the Board Meetings
committee had been discussed some time ago and it was agreed that the
committee be dissolved. The motion is to propose that the Board dissolve
the Meetings Committee. 

The Chair reflected that there is a corollary to this in that anything
arising about meetings will be dealt with by the Executive Committee 

Roberto Gaetano confirmed that this is what was agreed in Los Angeles. 

The Chair noted his opposition to that on the basis that the Executive
Committee is doing far too much 

Roberto Gaetano advised that this is only a temporary measure pending
the review of committees to be conducted by the BGC. 

Susan Crawford moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded the motion. that the
Board Meetings Committee be dissolved. 

It is herby rosolved (2008.01.08) that the Board Meetings Committee by
formally disolved. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 14-0. 

14) Redelegation of .AE ( United Arab Emirates) 

Kim Davies advised that on 31 July 2007, IANA received a request for the
redelegation of the .AE ( United Arab Emirates) top-level domain. The
.AE domain is presently operated by Etisalat's UAEnic unit. Etisalat is
a dominant telecommunications company in the country. It is proposed the
domain be transferred to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, a
government mandated entity responsible for "telecom assets". The TRA
proposes to establish a specific entity known as the AE Domain
Administration to promote and develop the .AE domain. It will rely on
technical support for registry implementation from an established
registry services vendor. Local Internet community support for this
application has been provided from the Emirates Internet Group. Given
the local cultural issues, it was not considered likely that substantial
additional support would be forthcoming. 

The Chair noted that the original report said no local Internet
community support was available, but that additional correspondence was
received just prior to the meeting. 

Kim Davies advised that this is the case and noted that IANA had not had
the opportunity to investigate the legitimacy and substance of the
letter, but advised that the ICANN Regional Liaison, Baher Esmat, had
confirmed it as legitimate. 

Paul Twomey indicated that this issue was summarized very well, and the
background to the redelegation was common to other countries in the Gulf
region - that the original operator has been local telecommunications
provider but as competition has increased the telephone company was no
longer considered appropriate. Similar steps had been taken in other
nearby countries. There was confusion in the minds of the applicant, but
recent communication has helped close some of those loops and it was
expected that this is the most you could expect from community. 

Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised concerns about the trend towards moving
domains to regulators without local consultation, and that it related to
a central issue of governance. Noting that in this particular case, in
the findings put forward by Staff, local consultation had not been found
satisfactory, Jean-Jacques expressed the view that ICANN should ask for
further information or action. He added that ICANN should state
preferred policy orientations when it has the opportunity. 

Dennis Jennings indicated his support of Jean-Jacques Subrenat's views.
He noted that territories will pass laws that appoint the regulator as
the manager irrespective of the views of the local Internet community,
and that ICANN will have to work out how to deal with that. 

Goldstein move to accept resolution in view of the stated local Internet
community support. The Chair proposed a resolution that the Board
approves the request for redelegation of .AE. 

Steve Goldstein moved and Rita Rodin seconded the following resolution: 

Whereas, the .AE top-level domain is the designated country-code for the
United Arab Emirates. 

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for redelegation of .AE to the
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority. 

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the
proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and
global Internet communities. 

It is hereby resolved (2008.01.09), that the proposed redelegation of
the .AE domain to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority is
approved. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 13-0 with one abstention by Jean-Jacques Subrenat.


Jean-Jacques Subrenat set our his reasons for abstaining in a written
statement to the Secretary following the Board Meeting as follows:
"IANA, in its findings, noted that the application for .AE did not meet
the general criteria for local Internet community support". As noted
above in the description of the meeting, during the Board discussion
Jean-Jacques Subrenat had suggested that ICANN solicit further
information on specific points of concern that need further elaboration.


15) Supplemental Resolution re: Brussels Branch Office 

John Jeffrey advised that this resolution relates to ICANN's business
filings for its Belgian office, and will allow ICANN to maintain the
business status in Brussels and file for appropriate business licenses
and license changes. 

The Chair moved and Susan Crawford seconded the following resolution: 

Whereas, in 2005 the Board of Directors unanimously approved ICANN
Resolutions 05.77-05.83 to establish a branch office of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Named and Numbers ("ICANN") in Brussels,
Belgium; and 

Whereas, ICANN must update some of the information relating to the
operations of the Brussels branch office. 

Resolved (08. ), that in accordance with the purpose clause of ICANN,
the branch office in Belgium, located at 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 5,
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium, continues to support ICANN's headquarters in
Marina del Rey, California, in performing ICANN's mission with respect
to Internet activities in Belgium and in other countries, including but
without limitation, policy support functions, facilitation of
communications with constituents in time zones similar or close to that
of Brussels, Belgium, and liaising with the regional internet registries
and performing other regional consultations. There is no separate
mission of the Belgian branch office separate and apart from supporting
ICANN's aforesaid headquarters. 

Resolved (2008.01.10) that while the activities carried out by the
Belgian branch office may change from time to time as needed to support
ICANN's headquarters, ICANN does not now and does not intend in the
future to receive or in any way generate revenues in Brussels.

Resolved (2008.01.11) that Mr. Olof Nordling, a Swedish citizen, shall
continue as the branch manager and legal representative in Brussels, as
set forth in ICANN Resolution 05.79, until his appointment is withdrawn
by resolution of this Board of Directors. 

Resolved (2008.01.12) to appoint Mr. Howard Liebman and Mrs. Danielle
Machiroux at Jones Day, electing domicile at Boulevard Brand Whitlock
165, 1200 Brussels, Belgium, each acting alone, as proxyholder, with
full powers to prepare, sign and file all documents and in general do
all what is necessary to proceed with all required formalities with the
Clerk of the Commercial Court, the Belgian State Gazette, the Crossroad
Bank for Enterprises, the Corporate Counter and the V.A.T.
administration. Mr. Howard Liebman and Mrs. Danielle Machiroux are each
entitled to sub-delegate any and all of the above powers. 

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present on all three
resolutions and the motions were approved by a vote of 14-0. 

16) UPU's .POST Agreement Update 

Briefly mentioned that the discussions are ongoing and that more
information coming will be coming to the Board in New Delhi. 

17) Update on Preparedness for India ICANN Meeting 

Paul Levins advised that the cost of the New Delhi meeting is projected
to be double the original budget. This happened because ICANN has taken
on more responsibility and there was little data available on actual
costs prior to organizing this meeting, and we are outsourcing more.
Another reality is that India is in demand as a city to meet in and we
didn't anticipate that demand. We have reduced the amount of staff
travel expenses for the meeting in New Delhi. Vendor costs have been
reduced and additional sponsorship of $100,000.00 was received from the
host. This has resulted in savings of the order of $625,000.00. As a
result of this exercise we now have a better understanding of vendor
costs and greater rigor in our organizing and budgeting processes. Paul
thanked the hosts for their assistance in working through these issues,
particularly Dr Govind, Ravi Shenkar, Ramaraj and Ram Mohan. 

18) Discussion of President/CEO's Report for December 2007 

Paul Twomey advised that the key issues in the December report are the
discussions on the JPA in US that have been occurring over the past
several weeks. He will be providing a further summation to the Board on
this in the next 24 hours. 

Financially we are still in strong position, $2.8m over budget in change
of net assets and thus we're in a reasonably strong position. We expect
that the forecast for FYE08 will not have such a high amount over budget
due to ramp up of costs and the fact that two out of three meetings will
be held in the second half of the year. We will provide an updated
report for you at the New Delhi meeting. 

Registrar data escrow and RAA-there has been a lot of work on registry
failover and this a major security step forward. 

The single letter domain comment period has come to a close and at the
moment an RFP has been issued to find someone with the skills to design
an auction process. 

New TLDs is big piece of work and involves consultants. 

Contractual compliance, a major report has been prepared and drew
attention to the work on not only WHOIS data but also WHOIS studies.
There has been an intense amount of work on this. Ensuring compliance a
regime of a scale process for penalties is being developed. 

IDN program continues, and the .TEST example project has added support
for Ethiopian and has had a lot of attention on the wiki in the Chinese
language. 

Main things to be aware of is we're working toward an operational plan
and budgeting to bring to community in February and this has taken a
fair amount of time in January. 

The Chair noted that the response to the 'dashboard' initiative has been
very positive. 

19) Other Business 

The Chair congratulated Avri Doria on her re-election as Chair of the
GNSO, and Louis Lee on his appointment as the Chair of ASO AC, and
acknowledged the work being done in both areas. 

The Chair encouraged Board members to undertake training on the new
board portal software if they hadn't already done so. John Jeffrey
advised that a reminder would be sent out to Board Members, and that the
portal is currently populated with materials for the present meeting. 

Rajasekhar Ramaraj advised that recently a contribution of $100,000 in
sponsorship for the New Delhi meeting had been made to support the
Meeting. 

The meeting was adjourned at 6.23 a.m. PST.