ICANN - Nairobi Board of Directors Meeting 12 March 2010 >> Ladies and gentlemen, if you please take your seats, we'll be starting our board meeting in approximately two minutes. So we would appreciate if you took your seats so we can begin on time. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, if you would be kind enough to begin taking your seats, we will be beginning our board meeting shortly. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome chairman, ICANN board of directors, Peter Dengate Thrush. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for coming to the board meeting here in Nairobi. Just checking on membership and attendance. We have -- Nancy, how are you doing with joining Rita and Suzanne? >> They are ready and on sound right now. They are not going to be shown on video. They did not wish that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies, welcome to Nairobi. Thank you for joining us. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: You're welcome, Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's move to ICANN 1 on the agenda. This is a consent item where we've taken a number of issues that we really need very little discussion, put them together, and we'll pass them in a single vote. As always, if any board member has -- wishes any one of these items to be taken out of the consent agenda and put on the main agenda for discussion, they only have to ask. And that request is acknowledged and responded to without discussion. Does anyone have an issue with any of the items on the consent agenda and wishes them to be taken off the consent agenda and placed on the full list for discussion? I see none. We'll take that, then, as -- I'm prepared to move that resolution. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thank you, Dennis. So let's put the first resolution, which is to adopt the consent agenda and those items that are listed. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita and Suzanne, do you vote in favor of the consent motion? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Yes. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And Suzanne? >>SUZANNE WOOLF: If I voted, I would. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry. Suzanne, you were just granted a vote. Thank you, I'll declare that granted unanimously. The second item, the president's report, I call on the president, Rod Beckstrom, to deliver it. Thank you, Rod. >>ROD BECKSTROM: Thank you very much, Peter. Sorry. Just took a second to get the microphone working. The staff and organization has been extremely busy in following up with the many responsibilities that it holds. A quick update includes progress on the public comment processes. Since the 4th of February, 2010 meeting, staff and community have closed the following public comment processes. Discussion, draft of the affirmation reviews proposal. Two rounds of EOI comments. New consumer constituency petition and charter and amendment of the GNSO operating procedures on the 2010 selection process for ICANN board seat number 13. 18 public comment processes started since the 4th of February, 2010 meeting, reflecting the substantive work done in preparation for the Nairobi meeting. Notable public comment period started are proposed framework for the 2011 operating plan and budget that we hope you will comment on online, multiple new gTLD-related periods, including some on the outstanding trademark issues, high-security TLDs, and zone file access. The draft WHOIS accuracy report, security-related initiatives, including DNS CERT, and the proposed initiatives for improved DNS security, stability, and resiliency. Three-character IDNs, one in two-character dot info domains, a report on registration abuse, and a call for a comment on the proposed process for the selection of a board member from the at-large community. Second, IDN ccTLD Fast Track process. We've received four additional applications for string evaluation, awaiting the DNS stability panel's report on the most recent submissions, and expecting to have additional strings successfully complete the string evaluation process by the end of March. The first four IDN strings passing string evaluation are still in the process of delegation request. Strategic plan. The strategic plan, which is on the wall towards the door as you entered and has been posted in most of the rooms here, was finalized and posted. This plan represents a significant innovation over previous cycles, including a simplified and clarified four-track, one-page overview, which can be found on the wall there. The planning cycle also integrated substantial community inputs into the process. The end result is simple, clear, and understandable. Next, the IANA functions department successfully conducted its first continuity failover exercise, emulating an IANA service outage in Marina Del Rey and unavailability of all Los Angeles and Marina Del Rey staff. Daily IANA functions are more resilient today than at any previous time in ICANN's history, meeting ICANN's obligations under the IANA contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce. This initiative was one I started on my first week in the job, when I was concerned what would happen if there was a catastrophic earthquake, as we've seen in Chile and other places, what would happen if the city of L.A. was taken off the power grid for a significant period of time, what would happen to the daily IANA functions, which are critical to the operations of the Internet. That is -- that process is now advanced. We're very pleased. Other staff milestones. Completed and published the Nonlawyer's Guide to the RAA in response to a request from the At-Large Advisory Committee chair. Active and contractual compliance activities, -- terminating the accreditation of three ICANN-accredited registrars, completed the first draft of the 2011 operating plan and budget framework, the policy department hosted a successful policy status webinar to provide detailed updates to the community on ongoing initiatives and is launching podcasts to provide additional information. I'd like to remind everyone about ICANN's dashboard on our Web site. It provides a statistical overview on compliance activities, communications, translations, publications, finance, global partnership team activities, and we also have statistical information available on the dashboard at forms.icann.org, forward slash, slash, idashboard, slash, public. So please check out the dashboard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rod. Any questions from directors arising from the president's report? Which is, of course, an update on the very full report you delivered at the opening of the week here in Nairobi. Any questions for Rod? If not, I see none. We'll move on to item 3, which is a status report on the Affirmation of Commitments. And just an introduction to that, people will be aware of the requirement to conduct reviews. We've published a strawman proposal trying to work out how this should be conducted. And Janis Karklins, the chair of the GAC, and I have a role in relation to the appointing of team members. And I'll ask Janis to give a status report on where that work has been going. Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Chair. On Monday, selectors conducted the round of open consultations on the process. We had a very lively debate. And we received good guidance from community on the question of selection process. We met as -- after the public session twice. We discussed the size, composition, of the transparency and accountability review team. We examined applications. The work is still in progress, but as a result of this work, selectors recommend that the size of transparency and accountability review team would be 13 members and possibly one or two independent experts. Selectors recommend that ASO would have one representative in the team; ALAC, one representative; ccNSO, two; governments, four, including two ex officio members of the team; GNSO, four; and chairman of the board would complete this list. Taking into account that ccNSO has nominated only one volunteer, selectors consider that ccNSO in that case would be underrepresented and invite incoming maybe a week, ten days, nominate -- make further nominations. Taking into account that endorsement process by ACs and SOs concludes 17th March, selectors will announce the proposal of names soon after. On the other tracks, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind that call for volunteers is still open, and the consultations with ACs and SOs on the size and composition of other review teams will be conducted soon after the end of this meeting. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Do members of the board have any questions of either of us in relation to team size, nature, structure? Or do you want to make a comment in relation to the reviews in general? Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you. This -- these reviews, of course -- are, of course, reviews by the community. So they're not a direct responsibility of the ICANN board. But we know from the bylaw reviews that reviews take a long time, are difficult to get going, are difficult to get momentum, and so on. How confident, Janis, are you that we can meet the very stringent timeline for this review and get this done this year? >>JANIS KARKLINS: I think that the strawman proposal indicates that the -- the timelines. I agree that they are very tight. But we needed time to allow communities and ACs, SOs, to think through the process, to establish the process, because this is the first -- first time when we are selecting teams. So it took maybe slightly longer. But if we are looking to calendar and taking into account that we need to deliver report or review team needs to deliver report in December, I think we're on track. And I would be worried if review team would not deliver the terms of reference and the performance metrics sometime in June, after public consultations. But so far, I think we're still on track. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: A follow-up, Dennis? >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Yes. Thank you, Janis. That's great. You mentioned performance metrics and so on. One of my concerns is that the review teams establish objective criteria for measuring these -- ICANN's performance rather than ad hoc measures. Has any work been done on establishing references for objective measures? For example, board governance, the NACD in the U.S. has objective standards for good board governance in not-for- profits. I'm not suggesting that's necessarily the reference. But I'm anxious to see that there are external reference standards against which ICANN is measured, rather than ad hoc standards. So my question is, how much work has been done so far on that? >>JANIS KARKLINS: I -- my answer is very simple. None. Because selectors' work was not to establish references or metrics. Our work was to launch the process, select the team, and make the team start working. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Dennis, can I thank you for those questions. They build onto a very important point. As you mentioned, the review teams are responsible for conducting the review, and they have to be at arm's length and do that objectively. But the reviews are being done within the context of a contract between ICANN and the U.S. government. The board maintains the responsibility to make sure that all of the issues in relation to the Affirmation of Commitments is done, and done well. So there is a role in relation to making sure that these review teams are set up properly, carry on their work, are properly staffed, et cetera. Where the line gets drawn between what's the board responsibility and what is the review team's responsibility will be established as we go forward. Let me just -- as people will be able to see, the board is in much the same position as, regrettably, we put the ACs and SOs, in hurried demand for names, which has strained the organizations a little bit. It has been hard for them to go through, effectively, an election process, given that, for example, the CCs and the at-large have to build those processes up through their five regional organizations. So we're in the same exercise. We're going to have to be building, bottom-up, a board structure to manage the board's responsibilities in relation to the reviews. Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Chair. I just had a question about one point you just mentioned, which is the support. Have you already a clear vision of what that will be? What are the constraints? And do you have a solution? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The answer is no. We're still in the process of scoping that. And to a certain extent, we're not sure how -- how this will fit with the review team itself and their own independent requirements. We don't want to force a set of solutions on the review team. But on the other hand, we have to make some provisioning. So we're in the process of discussing whether or not staffing, for example, is going to be provided by the ICANN staff, by a separate department of ICANN staff, or by independent outside experts. So all I can say at this stage is we're starting to grapple with these issues. But no solutions yet. A follow-up? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Very quick follow-up. Thank you, Peter. I just want to underline that I think it's really important to prepare for staffing adequately. And I mention this simply because you can't just do that overnight. It takes some preparation. I suppose that it's one of the concerns of our CEO. I just wanted to underline that necessity. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Any other questions of -- of Janis or me in relation to where we're at? This is just an updating status report. If not, we'll move on to the next item, which is in relation to the new gTLD implementation program. A status report and consideration of the expressions of interest proposal. Raimundo, I wonder if I could ask you to lead us through this one. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Okay. Thank you, Peter. It's an honor for me to have the opportunity to read this resolution. And I will wait for the debate that will -- to give some of my personal feelings about this. But I think the debate that we had before, and the work of the staff, the debate we had yesterday was a very rich one. In my own -- the experience, the most rich debate I have ever seen in ICANN, with very balanced expressions and very respectful for the thoughts of the other people. And the resolution we are going to discuss now reads like this. 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 risk analysis relating to a proposed action; Whereas, ICANN staff presented an analysis of the potential benefits of an expression of interest, EOI, process, and developed a preliminary EOI process model for ICANN board discussion; Whereas, the ICANN board consideration of the model was deferred until 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; Whereas, ICANN staff has received substantial public comments on the expressions of interest proposal, including two public comment sessions, and at the public forum at the 37th 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 and in opposition to proceeding with the EOI; Whereas, on 10 March 2010, the Governmental Advisory Committee 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; Whereas, the board has carefully considered all public comments received on the EOI; 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. Whereas, the staff and community work on the issues outstanding in the new gTLD program continues to progress. Resolved, the board withdraws the expressions of interest proposal from consideration. Resolved, the board directs the CEO to continue to work towards the launch of the new gTLD program. Resolved, finally, 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. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. Is there a seconder for that resolution? I see Jean-Jacques. Is there any comment on that resolution? I have Harald in the speaking order, and Bruce. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: So I'd like to express my worry about dropping the EOI, because I've -- I feel that we still have a couple of risks to the process. That is the risk that we are seriously misguided in our estimates on the volume and nature of the applications we get. So while I see the arguments on both sides, I think I'm going to abstain on this resolution, because I'm still scared. And I really hope that our CEO will do the -- take adequate steps to make sure that we minimize the risks that the EOI was intended to minimize. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter. Thank you, Peter. I think my first opening remark is, I guess this is an example of the process working, in that we've had a proposal come from the community. The board has then considered it and asked the staff to do more work on it. It's now had extensive discussion. Most of the board members have attended all the sessions on it this week and have sort of formed a view based on all of that input. It's clear that there's not consensus in the community on either the concept of the EOI or especially its implementation. It was also clear to me that there's a lot of confusion about the purpose of the EOI. Despite it being stated in the staff paper, much of the community discussion has been concerns that, you know, the EOI has other purposes. I think, as Harald said, from my point of view, one of the clear benefits it would give ICANN was that it would provide information on both the number of applications as well as what the strings would be in those applications. That gives the information to ICANN. It would also have given information to the applicants so that they would be able to better inform the development of their final application. So ultimately, I think ICANN would have benefited from a better quality in the final applications, because it would be informed by the other strings that would be available at the time. So those are what, I think, the advantages are. In terms of the discussion we had yesterday, there was a long discussion in the board, and a lot of the discussion was about the timeline. And we had -- we put it up on a board, and we tried to work out when should the EOI start, when should the EOI stop, what would the date be. And it got rapidly very complex, because we were starting to talk about when we publish the next draft applicant guidebook, say, in June, how will we know whether the issues have been resolved without actually getting the feedback from the community. So then if you say, well, we need some time to get the feedback from the community, if there was very strong feedback on a particular aspect of the guidebook, that might be material and therefore affect people's decision whether to apply through an EOI, then we'd have to issue another draft of the guidebook. So the more we started looking at that, one, we realized we'd have to go back to the community and try and explain the timeline and the decision-making, which would then sort of add another probably two or three months to the cycle, just to decide whether we were to get an EOI out there. And I think part of the feedback I had from members of the community was, we're putting a lot of effort into the EOI. We can't afford -- we should either vote yes or no at this meeting. Don't sort of say yes, subject to further work. Because we're taking up a huge amount of both staff resources and community resources to respond to any new draft that would be produced. And that's resources we're taking away from actually solving the underlying problems. So I think that's pretty much a summary of our thinking. And why we've come to this resolution. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. I think it's helpful to set out what a lot of work the board has put into trying to work out how to best get at the advantages that Harald and others have seen in this proposal but also explaining the difficulties of actually making it work. I've got Steve Crocker in the queue, then we'll close and move to a vote. Raimundo, you just -- Steve. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the purposes, and perhaps the primary purpose, that I perceive for the EOI is to give some sense of the magnitude of the demand that we might see. And that would inform the root scaling studies and determine what the load might be on the root server system. We have separately estimates worked up by Kurt and his staff that have been promulgated on anticipated delegation rates that includes both an estimate of the number of applications that might arise and, over a wide range of possible numbers of applications, what the resulting load would be on the root server system based upon the processing that would take place at the front end of that process, at the application processing. From my perspective, that's as reasonable an estimate as we're likely to get and provides enough information so that we ought to be able to work relatively well within that. The Internet is a -- as a system, exhibits enormous dynamic ranges in load in every aspect. And trying to get extraordinary precision is not really either useful or possible and not in keeping with the general resiliency of the systems we're dealing with. So I think the broad magnitudes that we have are sufficient from where I'm sitting to give us comfort that at least on that aspect -- there may be many other aspects that an EOI would have provided. But I think just from that particular perspective, I think we're in good shape. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And, Raimundo, the last word. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thanks. Only to express that the -- when I came to Nairobi, I was -- I was decided I was going to vote in favor of the EOI. But listening to all of the discussions here, all of the workshops, I got all the personal interaction. We had many people in the community. I got -- and given the GAC communiqué, I got persuaded that the (inaudible) of mandatory of the EOI had not consensus in the community. And that's why I changed my mind. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. I'll put that resolution, then. All those in favor of the resolution as moved and seconded, please raise your hands. All those opposed? All those abstaining? Harald. Would anybody either abstaining or voting against like to make a statement for the record? Mike. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Peter, it's Rita. I'm going to vote in favor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. >>MICHAEL SILBER: Peter, thank you for that. I think that I -- I agree with all of the comments expressed. However, I think that the notion of the EOI came from the community. It had significant benefit. There were complexities involved with it. I just think it's a pity that it's being thrown out. And I wanted to express that through my vote. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. We move then to item 5, which is a further new gTLD implementation in relation to vertical integration. And I'd ask George Sadowsky, George, will you help us with this one. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Thank you, Peter. I'll be pleased to. The resolution states the following; Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest, prices, service offerings, sources, and uses of data, and more; Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies and heard from industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or nonintegration; 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. 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 whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead. Resolved, 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. And resolved, 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, George. Is there a seconder for that resolution. I see Ray Plzak. Thank you, Ray. Any discussion? What a surprise. Dennis, thank you. It's a surprise only that it's been a subject of such intense debate, both by the community over a long period and by the board itself. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Well, just to highlight that I think this is important that we're recognizing that there's a GNSO activity, and we're relying on the bottom-up process and not meddling in advance. We are setting a baseline which would be the default, but we're relying on the GNSO, the bottom-up policy development process to develop the policy for us. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any further comments? Mike Silber. >>MIKE SILBER: Peter, just to amplify on Dennis's comments. I think the key phrase that was used repeatedly was the phrase "putting the genie back in the bottle." And if we took anything except an extremely conservative approach, then the GNSO PDP would be ill-fated from the start. This way at least we have the ability to set a baseline, and the GNSO through their process can then adapt or adopt that as they see fit, and then pass that recommendation through. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I will just close on that by thanking all the members of the community who have been so active in assisting the board to an understanding of this issue. And I thank that particularly to the debate in Seoul. What I meant was we were able to consider this decision with full implications of all of the consequences of the different options. And we did consider the different options. Complete release of all restrictions, imposition of a greater set of restrictions, or some kind of a halfway house of managed restrictions. And as I say, we had one of the more informed debates on the board because of the informed consideration that the community Wiki had been able to provide us. In the end I hope this position which we all regard as relatively unsatisfactory for a default position will be very promptly amended by a bottom-up policy development process from the GNSO. So with no further discussion -- Dennis? Oh, sorry. Rita, you would like to make a statement? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I would. Thank you, Peter. And I want to second what everyone said, and very succinctly say I am going to abstain on this particular resolution, not necessarily because I feel strongly or don't agree, but as I said in the board session yesterday, I think that the options that we were considering on that spectrum you just mentioned were release all restrictions with the exception of applicants or players that had market power, or go to this, as you just said, very conservative approach. We were discussing at length what the status quo was and what was really articulated in the contracts, and I think that there was some ambiguity there. So I'm not quite sure that this very strict separation policy, given the fact what we do today, and I am a little bit wary about moving to that sort of policy if that's going to cause some changes to the community. So that's why I am going to abstain on this vote. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. I will put the resolution, then. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions other than Rita? Bruce, would you like to make a comment about your abstention? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I am pleased to be able to abstain on this particular motion. I am abstaining primarily because I am employed by an ICANN accredited registrar, and also just want to state for the record that I haven't participated in any discussions in the board on this topic apart from keeping the board informed about the work program that the GNSO is commencing. I think the board is putting a lot of trust in the GNSO to be able to advise the board and to advise the board in a timely fashion. So I hope the GNSO can stand up to that trust. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's move, then, to resolution 6 which deals with two elements of trademark rights protection, the clearinghouse and the uniform rapid suspension. And I will ask Mike Silber, who chaired one of the workshops on these very contentious topics here in Nairobi, to take us through that. >>MIKE SILBER: Thanks, Peter. I am very pleased to say it's becoming significantly less contentious over time, and that's due largely to the very good work being done by various members of the community. So all kudos to them for the effort they put in. And I think that's reflected in the resolution. 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-led Implementation Recommendation Team, the IRT, to develop rights protection mechanisms. Whereas the IRT developed a proposal for an IP clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension that we were subject to public comment. Whereas the board asked the 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. Whereas the GNSO established the special trademark issue review team, or STI, to review the clearinghouse and URS proposal in response to the board's request. Whereas the GNSO's special trademark issue review team developed endorsements and revisions for the clearinghouse and URS, which the GNSO unanimously approved and then posted for public comment. Whereas ICANN considered public comment and revised clearinghouse and URS proposals to reflect the GNSO-STI model, make being few adjustments in keeping with public comment received on the GNSO-STI proposal. 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 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. Resolved, ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on the clearinghouse proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4 of the applicant guidebook. Resolved, ICANN staff shall analyze public comments on URS proposal and develop a final version to be included in version 4 of the applicant guidebook. Resolved, 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mike. Is there a seconder for that resolution? I see Ramaraj. Thank you, Ram. Any people who would like to speak to this resolution? Harald. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Given the history of this one, I just wish to applaud the ability of the community to come to a consensus. It's rare to see something come from a total clashing of heads to just about near total consensus in such a short time. This was extremely good. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I certainly echo those comments. Any other comments? If not, I will put the resolution in relation to the adoption of the clearinghouse and the URS. All those in favor of those resolutions, please raise their hands. Rita, are you voting on this one? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Yes. In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed to this resolution? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Let's move to item 8 -- sorry, item 7, a further new gTLD implementation resolution dealing with post-delegation dispute resolution. And Gonzalo, could I ask you to take us through this one. Thank you. >>GONZALO NAVARRO: Thank you, Peter. So here we go. New gTLDs implementation post-delegation dispute resolution procedure, PDDRP, legal rights. 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. Whereas, the IRT's work included a proposal for the post-delegation dispute resolution procedure, PDDRP, that was posted for public comment to provide an additional rights protection mechanism in the new gTLD process. Whereas ICANN considered public comment, revised PDDRP and the board directed that it be included in the version 3 of the applicant guidebook. And whereas, the board approves the concept of a PDDRP which should be included in the new gTLD program as another avenue of a trademark protection in light of additional public comments received, ICANN further revised the PDDRP which is currently posted for another round of public comments. Resolved, 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 version 4 of the applicant guidebook. Resolved, 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Gonzalo. Is there a seconder for that resolution? I see Ray. Thank you, Ray. Any discussion about going forward with this? Thank you, Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I just want to acknowledge that the board certainly did hear during the registry stakeholders group meeting during the week that there were concerns about the implementation of the dispute mechanisms and also what the role would be of the dispute provider with respect to recommending any sanctions versus the role of ICANN to choose any sanctions that may result from infringements of trademarks at the gTLD level. So I just want to reiterate that the board supports the concept of having a post-delegation dispute mechanism, which is what this resolution refers to, but also the board supports the registry stakeholders group and others working closely with staff to resolve the implementation details prior to the next draft of the applicant guidebook. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, thank you, Bruce. I was going to make a similar point. We heard it from a number of members about implementation and remedies, particularly the concept that a single panelist might actually have the power to transfer property, which would be a new departure for us in terms of process. Can I just confirm that's what is intended in the resolution by that phrase "ensuring that the various interests of the community are considered." We expect there to be considerable further consultation to make sure all those sorts of issues are properly balanced and the various competing interests. Is there any further comment in relation to this resolution. Seeing and hearing none, I will put the resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, are you voting? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Yes, in favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carries unanimously. Thank you. We then come to resolution 8, further new gTLD implementation, one dealing with registry restrictions. Another post-delegation dispute procedure. And, Bruce, I ask you to take us through this one. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. To provide context, part of the application process for obtaining a new gTLD, there are components such as community components where a registry may undertake to operate their registry on behalf of a particular community, and it's also possible that a registry might be operating a gTLD with the support of a specific government, and it's also possible that as part of disputes that might arise with respect to in the applicant process that particular contractual terms may end up in an agreement to effectively record the resolution of those disputes. So there is a need to have a mechanism where if a party feels that a registry operator is violating those restrictions that there is a forum where that discussion can take place. So now reading the resolution. 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"; 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. 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. Whereas, using an independent dispute resolution service provider would allow independent and rapid resolution of disputes regarding enforcement of community restrictions. And whereas, the registry restrictions dispute resolution procedure, which now has the acronym RRDRP, for those that are collecting those, was published for public comment on the 31st of May 2009, along with an explanatory memorandum describing the procedure and the rationale for incorporating it into the new gTLDs program. The draft procedure has received little public comment since, and no comment indicating that it should not be implemented. It's resolved, ICANN shall publish a final draft version of the PDDRP in the applicant guidebook version 4. It's also resolved that 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. Is there a seconder for this resolution? Thank you, Katim. Any further discussion? Yes, Ray. >>RAY PLZAK: Are we sure that's the correct acronym in the resolution? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Which of the many? [ Laughter ] >>BRUCE TONKIN: That is correct. The first resolved has got the acronym. It's a bit dyslexic. >>RAY PLZAK: The one regarding publishing it in the applicant guidebook. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, it should be -- The acronym should be RRDRP. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: RRDRP, which we now seem to have up on the screen. Thank you, Ray. Good catch. Anything else? If not, then I will put the resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, are you voting? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. Thank you very much. Come then to a more technical one. This is another new gTLD implementation issue in relation to the three-character requirements. And I will ask Steve Crocker -- no, Thomas Narten if you can take us through this one. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas, public comment has indicated that the requirement for gTLD strings to be at least three characters would limit the utility of IDN gTLDs in some regions of the world. Whereas, the GNSO IDN working group previously recommended that applications for fewer than three-character gTLDs were allowed in the gTLD program based on a case by case evaluation. 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. 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 two-character gTLDs can be delegated and deferred the notion of one-character gTLDs pending policy issues. Whereas, a number of thoughtful public comments have been received. And whereas a model for implementing the team's recommendation in the new gTLD program has also been posted for public comment. Resolved, 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. Whereas, subject to any amendments in response to public comment, the board supports the substantive content of the model that was posted on February 15, 2010 for public comment and expects that it will be included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Resolved, ICANN thanks those members of the community who have devoted their time and energy to advancing this aspect of trademark rights protection. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. Is there a seconder for that? I see Dennis. Anyone wish to speak to this resolution? No? All right. Let's put that to a vote. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Thank you. Rita, are you voting? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any abstentions -- Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. Let's move, then, to item 10 which is in relation to IDN variants, and we have the ability to call on some technical expertise. I will ask Dr. Crocker to take us through this one. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first of three related resolutions, 10, 12, and 13 -- not 11 -- related to IDNs and related topics. Resolution 10, IDN variants. Whereas, language communities that use variant characters are affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs. Whereas, an implementation IDN -- an independent, excuse me. Whereas an independent IDN implementation support team was formed as a result of discussions alt the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia, to make recommendations for managing IDN variants at the top level. 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. Whereas, the variant approach used in the IDN ccTLD fast track is consistent with the team's recommendations. Whereas a model for implementing the recommendations of the IDN implementation support team for allocation or 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 comment. Resolved, 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. Resolved, the board tasks the ICANN CEO to undertake a study on the usability of the DNAME resource record as part of the supported mechanism for managing TLD strings containing variants. Resolved, 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. Let me also comment that -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Sorry, Steve. Just before you do that, can I have a seconder for that resolution as a matter of formality? Thank you. George. Now the floor is open for comment. Thank you, Steve. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me comment as I stated that this is the first of three related resolutions on this very technical and very intense activity, and I'm very pleased to see this moving forward. One element not included directly in the resolutions but part of the discussions is a focus on bringing greater exposure to the intense technical work that takes place hyped the scenes. Is there slides related to these resolutions, and particularly slides related to resolution 13? Doug? No? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: No, not that I am aware of. >>STEVE CROCKER: One element that is related -- here we go. Can you go to the last one of these. >> These slides are on the screen. >>STEVE CROCKER: Next steps. Where is -- Oh, yeah. So the very, very last bullet, establish peer review mechanisms for technical stability panel is intended to bring to light some of the. (scribes lost audio). (no audio to scribes momentarily). You. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. Now we move to resolution 11 which as Steve indicated is slightly out of order since it's a new gTLD implementation dealing with the communications plan that we intend to launch in connection with the new gTLD program and I ask Jonne Soininen to take us through this one. >>JONNE SOININEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas the new gTLD program communications activities began in June 2008 with the policy approval during ICANN's meeting in Paris. 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. Whereas, ICANN has published a communications plan that supports the new gTLD program implementation plan and considers a full range of global audiences. Whereas, ICANN recognizes that the communications plan is a living document and should be flexible to accommodate the evolving circumstances and attend to the needs of specific regions and audiences around the world. 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, whereas, the board has listened to the community input about the intensifying communications activities in various regions around the world. Resolved, 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. Resolved, 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 38th international meeting in Brussels, ICANN will work with the SOs and the ACs to leverage the networks and design the timeline around the actual launch. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jonne. >>JONNE SOININEN: Then -- not quite. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Turn the page. >>JONNE SOININEN: Sorry. Took a little bit more time than you expected. Resolved, 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. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jonne. I'm sorry for interrupting. Is there a seconder for that? I see Jean-Jacques. And would anybody like to speak to this resolution? Rod. >>ROD BECKSTROM: Yes. I'd just like to say first we look forward to working with the board and the community on the successful resolution and timely resolution of all the overarching issues. Secondly, we are really looking forward to working with the GAC, the Government Advisory Committee, ALAC, the ccNSO. We have already spoken with leadership in each of these groups informally to request their assistance to get the word out on the new gTLD program. We have received many excellent ideas and suggestions for how to do that, but we need the entire community's assistance to get the message out far and wide through your networks, your relationships. And you know how your communities work and in the case of the GAC you know how your countries and the industrial organizations work. So we're very excited to work with all of those parties as well as the other ACs and SOs and constituencies. So we're really looking forward to it. And we will need your help. The budgets on the communication will be limited, but your networks are massive. So we look forward to collaborating on that. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rod. Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say that I think I am looking forward to this because I think it's going to be very important and a critical part of the very important work that ICANN needs do. I also like to remind us to remember to pay particular attention to Africa and Asia because it has been brought to our attention, a lot of people and the constituents have been complaining that in the outreach effort to basically explain the new applicant guidebook to constituencies around the world, basically there actually has not been any event that has been done in Africa in contrast to events that have been done in New York and I think in Europe. So for that reason, we need to pay particular attention, I think, to those regions that, for some reason or the other, were not covered in the outreach efforts in our efforts to explain the new gTLD -- gTLD applicant guidebook. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Katim. I agree with you completely. Can I ask the resolution to scroll back to the whereases. Stop. That's what's intended in the resolution, the whereas at the bottom of the page, if they would stop moving it. Thank you. The communication 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. That's exactly what's meant by that. There's no sense there is going to be a one-size-fits-all marketing program or one set of materials prepared and just delivered. These are going to have to be tailored, and part of what Rod was talking about is using the different communities that we have got these connections with to help make sure we are getting right into the heart of those communities. So thank you, Katim, for highlighting that requirement. Any other comment? I think this is an extraordinary exercise. I can't wait for this to actually begin. All right. Let's put that resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, your vote, please. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Again, carried unanimously. Thank you. Now let's drop back to the technical resolutions, or I suppose you technical people would consider we were dropping up to the technical resolutions. And we come to resolution 11 -- 12, which is going to be dealt with by Harald. Harald. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Thank you. So at the beginning of this week, the board was informed that we had a problem. As you know, board does not make -- execute policy. It makes -- it oversees policy. But we found there was an issue and we did something. We'll see. This is the resolution for saying who we asked to deal with it. Formation of board working group on equivalent string support. Whereas, on 16 November 2009, ICANN launched the IDN fast track process pursuant to the board's resolution on 30 October 2009. Whereas, in the implementation of the process, staff has identified an issue related 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. And 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. Resolved, that an equivalent strings support board working group, ES- WG, is established to review the issues, develop a recommendation on a framework for resolution and principles to guide staff implementation of the framework and remain available for consultation during staff's implementation work. Resolved, 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, and Suzanne Woolf. Resolved that the working group's mandate will end at the conclusion of the ICANN's 38th international meeting in Brussels. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. Is there a seconder for in a resolution, please? Thank you, George. Any discussion about the need to create this working group? A comment on the structure of it or what is particularly pleasing to me when we set up a working group, I do like to see that it has a termination date. We can always refresh that if we need to, but it's nice to know these things just don't go on forever. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just briefly. I urge this be passed because the working group has actually done some intensive work during the week. It was my privilege to chair it, but the extraordinary effort by the technical members was something to behold and has done sterling work. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Dennis, I see no signs of rebellion -- although Jean-Jacques put his hand up at that time. I'm sure that was purely coincidental. Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Yes, I have just discovered, Dennis, that there is a new category of board members which is the technical members. Could you explain that? >>DENNIS JENNINGS: No, it's a membership -- November that membership. Some of it, the members have very technical skills. That's what I meant to say, Jean-Jacques. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's an extraordinarily talented board. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: You mean including linguistic, which is technical. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ray Plzak, and then Harald. Ray. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: No. It's a membership -- I don't have that membership, but some of the members have very technical skills. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's an extraordinarily talented board. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: You mean including linguistic, which is technical? Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ray Plzak, and then Harald. Ray. >>RAY PLZAK: Question, Mr. Chairman. The resolution as it's shown on the screen says "Conclusion of the board's 2010 annual general meeting." The resolution as read said the meeting in Brussels. So which one are we voting on, please? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Apologies, that was my mistake. I was reading from the wrong paper. It should read (reading): pgh " resolved that the working group's mandate will end at the conclusion of ICANN's annual general meeting." And my apologies. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Looks like there was a minor change. Thank you, Ray. So just to be clear, Harald, we've -- the working group is happy that its mandate should go until the annual meeting? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: The working group really hopes that it doesn't have any work to do. But it agrees that this is a good date. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. Any further questions about this resolution? Creating a working group? All those in favor, please raise your hands? Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, any -- anyone opposed? Any abstentions? Carried. Well, Dennis, your worst nightmare has not been realized. And we now have a legitimized working group. Let's move to the next resolution, which deals with some of the work that's already started under that working group. And I'll ask Ram Mohan to explain things for us. Thank you, Ram. >>RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Peter. This resolution is about the principles for handling synchronized IDN ccTLDs for the fast track process. Whereas, ICANN launched the IDN ccTLD fast track process on 16th November 2009 as set forth in the board resolution of 30 October 2009; 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; 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; 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 Working Group, ES-WG, to address instances in the fast track process where more than one official language or script exists within a country or 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). 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; 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 equivalent script implementation plan or ES Implementation Plan; 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 DNS security and stability, as well as usability concerns, must be taken into account; 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 domains named by this TLD, following criteria established in the ES Implementation Plan, and to take immediate steps to remove any divergence should it occur; And, 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. Resolved, 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; Resolved, 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ram. Is there a seconder for this resolution? Thank you, Dennis. Anyone wish to speak to it? Thomas, Bruce, Mike. Starting with Thomas. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Thank you, Peter. I just wanted to mention that the working group straddled a very fine balance here. And with the requirements of countries and user communities with a compelling need and expectation for a particular kind of behavior when using IDNs in variants. And I think it needs to be said that the reality is when variants are involved, there isn't sort of a single ideal, perfect, easy technical approach that works in all the cases. As much as we would like. And the approach that we're recommending here is it will allow the use of variants in a relatively narrow context in which we have operational experience with a particular approach, so we have a -- you know, a fair amount of confidence that it can be made to work. But at the same time, it's worth noting that this approach will not likely work in other environments where the variant issues are different. So we by no means have solved the variant problem. There's still quite a bit of work to do, as reflected by some of the other resolutions that are on the agenda today. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter. Just to elaborate slightly on what Thomas has said, we do have another resolution that we've already passed on IDN variants. And we have this resolution. So potentially, people may be confused why there's two. I think if we look at what the expected behavior is, if I have example.TLD variant 1 and example.TLD variant 2, the expected behavior from users is often that they will reach the same Internet location. It sounds very simple. Actually, the implementation very technically is very hard. And that's because the issue of getting your name resolved when you type example.TLD variant is a distributed system, and there's multiple computer systems involved in making that work. And also multiple entities involved in managing that data. So that can include a registry operator; it can include a registrar; and it can include a DNS operator, which may or may not be the registrant. So there's, like, three or four systems involved here. So the simplest answer for many applications is simply to say, what we don't want is to have variants of a name at the top level that do result in unexpected behavior. And so a very simple technical solution is to say, okay, we have one delegated into the root, and we reserve the other variant to stop it being misused by another party in the future. But we do recognize that there are some situations where there is an expectation within that user community that both variants in general language use are widely used amongst users using computers in that location, both in their exchange of e-mail and use of World Wide Web applications. And so we do realize that we have to create some specific rules, if you like, that will deal with that situation. The other comment I would make is that I'm always very wary when we have a board working group really doing development of process -- of solutions as opposed to relying on staff and the community. And so I think this is a case where we are making an exception, partly because we have world experts on the board that cover many of the fields that need to be considered in this. But I want to reiterate, what I don't want to see is the board working in isolation. And there is a part of this resolution that's fairly general. It just says "consult with the ICANN community." But if I can be a little bit more specific on my expectations of that, there was a fast track process for IDNs that involved the GAC, ccNSO, and the GNSO, and maybe others. I would hope perhaps that that group may self-form again or at least some members of that group, and try and make early contact with the board working group so that there is an interaction. Because I do want to make sure that the community has both an understanding and a support for whatever solution is finally presented to the board. And that also goes for any language communities that feel that they have a situation that merits this approach. There may be several, that those language communities make early contact with the board working group. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. Harald, are you still on the speaking order? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Yes, please. I just wish to say that I -- I think the working group has come on the right side of -- working groups of the board, or the board, don't do operational action. So it's not for the board to approve or disapprove of any single string, except for a final delegation step. So I think we did the right thing in making sure we have a policy where -- that allows staff the flexibility to come to the conclusions that are right for the community. And our interest is always that the public interest of the Internet users should be served. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. Next on my list is Ram Mohan, followed by Suzanne, followed by Ray. So, Ram, you're next. Okay. Let's go to Ray. >>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Peter. I just want to say that I really endorse the concerns that Bruce has mentioned. So, for me, that's a big "me, too." >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray. So noted. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: This is a very general -- dealing with a very general issue and is very -- is couched in very general language. And I think that is quite appropriate so that it's a -- covers all cases and has a process and delegates to staff the implementation details. But we're aware that there are some very large language communities that that applies to immediately. I believe -- I understand that the upper and lowercases, that's the appropriate designation of the Chinese language scripts is one possible example. And I just want to confirm in English whether this process would deal with that case if it were -- you know, if it were a case to arise. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Does a member of the working group feel able to respond to Dr. Jennings' request? Harald. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: My understanding is that this gives staff the framework it needs to evaluate such a request and react positively, as long as -- as long as staff has assured itself that the security and stability of the Internet is not jeopardized. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. Suzanne, are you ready to join us on this one? >>SUZANNE WOOLF: I am. Thank you, Peter. I just -- given the amount of discussion on the IDN resolutions, I would just like to -- it's a very complex area, has caused a great deal of discussion. And I just want to sort of put a framing perspective to it. All of the IDN resolutions speak to a very important milestone in that we're moving further along the line from policy development to concerns of implementation and deployment. We're continuing to find challenges, but we need to keep that in perspective. That's to be expected with an undertaking of this magnitude and importance. So I just want to note, today's resolutions do represent real progress towards IDN TLDs in the root. And we can look forward to further challenges. But that's -- that's how we get there. We're also looking forward to further progress. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Suzanne. And now Ram Mohan. >>RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Peter. While the resolution has a great deal of technical depth, et cetera, and as Dennis said, this is a -- what the working group has proposed, a generic solution. Generic solution because we think this is a problem that may recur, that may come back again. The most immediate example, however, of this situation is that in the -- in the Chinese script-using communities. I won't go into the details of the problem. But my own perspective is that with the principles that the working group has provided in this resolution, I think it provides a very clear path for problems such as those that the Chinese script-speaking communities have, for those to be resolved in a very rapid manner, I believe it's the board's goal and expectation that establishing this set of principles, followed by, hopefully, a swift implementation plan from staff, would lead to a resolution of, for instance, the Chinese language issues. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Ram. And, Janis, you wanted to respond, I think, to a point. Thank you. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. I just wanted to quickly react to a proposal of Bruce's. And I can confirm that the GAC would be very much prepared to interact with the working group. And I just received a confirmation also from chairman of the ccNSO that ccNSO is also willing to interact with the members of the working group on the subject. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Once again, it sounds like harmony and collaboration is breaking out. I'm not sure that we can cope with too much more of this. Thank you very much. Any further comment on that resolution? If not, I'll -- let's put that resolution as moved and seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Vote in favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. Come then to a discussion led by Ramaraj, the chair of the Finance Committee, on the framework for the fiscal year operating plan. Ram, could I ask you to help us with this one. Thank you. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Thanks, Peter. I just wanted to draw everybody's attention that the framework for the budget and operating plan for next year, financial year 2011, has been posted for comment and inputs. I think Kevin Wilson has already interacted with some of you for clarifying the process in completing the budget. The budget for the next year is expected to be approved in Brussels. The time, therefore, for inputs and feedback is now. And I would urge and request all of you to please participate and give your feedback so that Kevin and his team can do their best to try and include your inputs into the budget and operating plan for next year. So that is really -- I want to take this opportunity to make that request. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ram. Is there any other further discussion about the operating plan? I just wanted to make the point that we've had this discussion about the process. And just to make the community clear that we have a first round where strategic objectives are set at a reasonably high level. And we're now at the important place where I expect to see contest by the various parts of the community for resources. Everything on the strategic plan is not necessarily going to be able to be done. Rod's already been mentioning some of the budgetary constraints that we're operating under. Now is the time in this part of the phase, for people to be making sure that the prioritizing, at least in relation to spending, is being set. Rod, I don't know whether you want to respond to that at all. >>ROD BECKSTROM: Yeah. I don't need to tell anyone here how overloaded the organization is. I mean, look at how overloaded the volunteers are. And I had even meetings with some of the community leaders talking about the severe loads on volunteers. I have witnessed the board handling an incredible, incredible amount of work. The staff is the same. There are so many ideas, resolutions, recommendations, reviews, policy changes that are heaped upon or shared with this organization, which is appropriate, because it's a vital coordination body for the domain name system globally. But it cannot do all things all the time. It must have priorities. And so it was useful to go through the strategic planning process with the community. And now we need to work on the operating plan, which has been posted, and really look forward to your feedback as we enter into making those tradeoffs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rod. Bruce, and then Dennis. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. Just one comment I'd like to make on part of the budgeting exercise in the operating plan. And that's that we start to properly budget for the development of databased studies that can help inform policy development work. So I think we're making a step in that direction. We're doing some studies on economic matters. We received a report from economists on the issue of registry/registrar separation, as an example. And we also recently received a proper statistical analysis of WHOIS accuracy. I think it's important to just have a feel for the costs of some of that work. So the work, collectively, that's been done on some of the economic analysis, has cost the organization in the region of $1 million. So those complaining about $55,000 for a expression of interest might be shocked to say that we have actually had to spend a great deal more than that on some of our studies. The WHOIS work was also in the region of several hundred thousand dollars. Now, that work gives some useful results. But what I would urge the policy development groups is to try and identify for the year ahead what are the major work items that you believe need data analysis, and let's see if we can get some initial quotes on how much some of that may cost and build it into the budget. But more particularly, it's going to be a prioritization exercise. So if -- if a certain budget is cut for a particular area, let's say it was for WHOIS studies, what you need to be thinking about is, which studies give you the best information and the best return for the costs in creating that data. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. Dennis, and then we'll go to a vote. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. Despite the very excellent presentations that have been given on this, a couple of members of the community have said to me, "I see ICANN is running a deficit this year." That's not the case. Our income exceeds our expenditure. We are not running a deficit. We may have to reduce the amount of money that's transferred to our reserves. But we're not running a deficit. And we need to -- we need to communicate, perhaps excessively, in those simple terms to make sure that that message is out. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Actually, we don't need to go to a vote, because we're not voting on anything. We'll move on to the next topic where we will have a vote, which is in relation to the consideration of the Independent Review Panel declaration in relation to the ICM application. Most people will be well aware of the circumstances of the application on one of the sTLD rounds which the board rejected in 2007, they applied for reconsideration. The panel has issued its decision, saying that we made some mistakes in the way that was dealt with. Under the bylaws, we are required to deal with that. And I'll ask Rita Rodin Johnston to take us through the board's resolution in relation to this one. Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you, Peter. And I just want to assure everyone in the community that the board takes this decision very seriously. We spent a bunch of time this week in our closed sessions discussing it. We had excellent papers from staff. And we intend to continue moving very quickly to making a decision. So consideration of the Independent Review Panel declaration, ICM Registry, versus ICANN. Whereas, on the 6th of 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 dot XXX- sponsored TLD. Whereas, on the 8th of September, 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP; Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel, (the panel), was constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out their respective positions on the matter; Whereas, from the 21st through the 25th of September 2009, a live hearing was held in Washington, D.C., where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness testimony; Whereas, on the 19th of February, 2010, the panel issued its 2-1 majority declaration with findings; Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, Section 3.15 of ICANN's bylaws, "where feasible, the board shall consider the IRP panel declaration at the board's next meeting"; Whereas, the board has considered the IRP panel declaration throughout the week in Nairobi from 7 through 12 of March 2010, and reviewed various paths toward conclusion; and Whereas, in the absence of a process for improving a sponsored TLD six years following the receipt of the original application, and given that the board wishes to create a transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment. It is resolved that the board has considered the Independent Review Panel's declaration in conformity with the ICANN bylaw requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICM's application for dot XXX. Resolved, the board directs ICANN's CEO and general counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration. And further resolved that 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 38th international meeting in Brussels. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thank you, Ray. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put that resolution. All those in favor, please raise their hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Excellent. That will set out a way of dealing with that matter. Come to resolution 16, which is -- deals with the location of our meeting in December. And I'll ask Jean-Jacques, as chair of the Public Participation Committee, to help us with this one. Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few words of context. The PPC, Public Participation Committee, is looking at the current parameters and criteria for the selection of venues for ICANN's international meetings. And, of course, on how to improve upon that, if it's possible at all. And it's too early to give you any clear indication at this stage. But we will be working on this and forwarding recommendations to the board. In the meantime, there is this proposal for a resolution entitled "approval of location of ICANN international meeting December 2010." Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its third meeting for 2010 in the Latin America region; Whereas, multiple entities submitted viable proposals to serve as host for the ICANN 2010 Latin America meeting; Whereas, staff has completed a thorough review of the proposals received; and 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. Resolved, 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. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thank you, George. Any further discussion? I think it's relatively straightforward. Start negotiating the best terms as quickly as possible so that we can get the details out for the community to make plans. No further comment. I'll put that resolution, then, authorizing the CEO as discussed. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried. We then come to item 17, which deals with an application for reconsideration in relation to some staff action. And I'll ask Vanda, who was a former member of the Reconsideration Committee and knows its processes well, to take us through this one. Thank you. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Okay. Thank you. Board acceptance of the BGC determination on reconsideration request 10-1. Resolves, the board accepts the determination of the BGC in response to the reconsideration request that the preliminary report was posted less than ten -- 10, in numbers -- hours later than the time required by the bylaws. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Vanda. Is there a seconder for that? I see Ray. Thank you, Ray. This is a complaint -- or a request by a member of the community who noted that the minutes were posted, I think, approximately nine and a half hours late, according to our rules. And applied for reconsideration. As required, the BGC now performs the functions of reconsideration. The BGC convened itself, reconsidered the matter, and noted that it's true, the minutes were indeed posted nine and a half hours late. And so this acknowledges the reconsideration request, as we are required to do under the bylaws. Slightly more productively, perhaps, than that, the BGC then took the opportunity to look at the circumstances and has adopted a new practice. And I'll ask Dennis, as chair of the BGC, if you'll take us through the consequential work that's flowed from that. Dennis, resolution 18. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Do you want to take the form of 17 first? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry. I haven't put the vote. Yes. I'm rather taking -- taken that as read. All of those in favor of this resolution, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any abstentions? Any opposed? Carried unanimously. Dennis, the useful work that flowed. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: The adoption of the BGC recommendation resulting from reconsideration request 10-1 which has been described in the previous resolution. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee, the BGC, presented a recommendation in response to reconsideration request 10-1, recommending a change in the bylaws calling for posting the board- approved resolutions within two business days after the conclusion of each board meeting and the preliminary report within seven business days after the conclusion of each board meeting; and. 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. Resolved, 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 advancement in ICANN's practices relating to accountability and transparency. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Is there a seconder for that resolution? I see Ramaraj. Thank you, Ram. Any discussion? I think we've been gradually moving in my time on the board along this line to try and work out what we can get out immediately after a meeting. There has certainly been never any intention, but we have difficulties in what actually can be released. Formal minutes take some time, have to be cleared through general counsel. There's always been a strong urge to make sure the community gets the results of a board meeting. And this seems to be a very good compromise between getting out minutes and getting out the detail of the meeting. So well done to the BGC for that improvement. Is there any other discussion on this. If not, I am put the resolution accepting the BGC's change to the way we publish after board meetings. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Any abstentions in carried unanimously. Thank you. We come to another BGC recommendation which result -- it deals with a matter of board training. And Ray, as a member of that committee and someone who is leading that particular exercise, could I ask you to talk to resolution 19. >>RAY PLZAK: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The board, as a matter of preamble, is always interested in improvement, and that's been noted many times over the -- even through discussions the past week. And obviously one of those things is training. And we have been conducting training sessions. It's come time for us now to really formalize that program and organize it and conduct it in a systematic manner. So that's what this resolution is about. BGC recommendation on board training program. Whereas, the skills of board members are critical to enable the ICANN board function effectively in the complex ICANN environment. Whereas, board members come from a diverse set of backgrounds and experiences. Whereas, the board is committed to the appropriate support for director training and development of board member skills. Whereas, there is no clear inventory of the skills and knowledge board members -- that board members need to be effective in their roles as board members. Whereas, the experience with the initial training program for board members has been positive. And 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. Resolved, the CEO is direct 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 the ICANN's 2010 annual general meeting. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray. Is there a seconder of that resolution? Dennis, as chair of the BGC, something that you are going to be intimately involved. It's nice to see the support. Is there any discussion about this, which as Ray has explained, formalizes a long-felt urge to improve the training requirements of the board. In particular, what we have talked about is making sure we have a common vocabulary. We come from many different cultures, many different corporate cultures, many different legal environments. And one of the things we need to do is to make sure when we talk about such things as the directors' fiduciary duties, et cetera, we all have the same understanding of that. So I am looking forward to the further improvement this will bring. No further comment? Let's put the resolution that will get a formal training procedure underway. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: In favor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. Resolution 20 deals with something that the board is concerned about which is the ability for applicants from different cultures to make application in the new gTLD program. And it's something that Katim has brought consistently to our attention. So, Katim, can I ask you to take us through resolution number 20. >>KATIM TOURAY: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the board has been consistently concerned about the inclusiveness of the new gTLD process, and, indeed, it's been the subject of numerous discussions on the board list. And it is for this reason that it's most particularly welcome that we have been finally brought -- we are finally in a position where we are responding to the demands from the community, the requests from the community, that we do something to address this. In this regard, and in the spirit of consultation and multistakeholder grass-roots driven process, the board is passing this resolution to basically throw the ball back to the community, imploring them to come up with their own ideas as to how best ways to move forward with this process. And it is particularly timely that we are having this resolution passed in Nairobi, being one of -- Kenya, of course, being one of the countries -- one of the developing countries that this resolution aims to address some of the needs that they have as we move forward with the new gTLD process. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I am profoundly honored and happy to move for the adoption of this resolution which reads as follows. Support for applicants requesting new gTLD applicants. Pardon the error there. It says whereas the launch of the new gTLD program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation. Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registrars and -- registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis. Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants. Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the new gTLD program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives. Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and ongoing services to new gTLDs. 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. Resolved, the board recognizes the importance of an inclusive new gTLD program. Resolved, 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Katim. Is there a seconder for that? I see Jean-Jacques. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Would anybody like to speak to this one? No? Mike. Thank you. Rita, was that you wanting to say something? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Yes, please, just after Mike. >>MIKE SILBER: Peter, firstly just to emphasize, there have been a number of reminders coming this week, and very appropriately so for a meeting taking place in Africa, that it's not our position to impose a top-down process on people. It's really up to the community to formulate a bottom-up process, bring it to the board so that we can recommend our staff to actually act on it, and I think the resolution covers it. And just a request for a friendly amendment in the title to change it to read support for applicants requesting assistance with new gTLD applications. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sure we can attend to the last part, and we look forward to the community dealing with the first part of your comments. >>MIKE SILBER: Indeed. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Rita, your turn. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Yes. Mike was actually covering it. I just wanted to echo what Katim said. I think this is something that's really close to the heart of many on the board, and I hope that the community responds to the board's request here and really tries quite hard to provide with us an approach to support this extremely important principle to our organization and really to the expansion of the Internet to all parts of the world. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita. Rod. >>ROD BECKSTROM: I just wanted to comment. I feel this resolution has certainly benefited from having this wonderful meeting here in Kenya. And so many of the board members and members of staff have heard the voices of many different countries, organizations, and businesses across Africa. And I'm really pleased to see this resolution being put forward and look forward to the help of the community in this working group. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rod. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I think one of the things to look at is how parts of the developing world can assist the perhaps less developed world by in-kind support and contributions. And I think it's worth just recognizing that there is a fine tradition in the registry community of doing that. There are several small ccTLDs that are supported on the infrastructure of the large gTLDs. There's also been a tradition in terms of sharing name server resources, because there is a requirement to get redundancy that you have more than one name server in more than one location. And many of the ccTLDs, over time, have shared those resources where one country might act as a secondary for the other country. So there's a lot -- Just be clear that the cost of running these registries is far higher than the application fee. Those costs can be managed through sharing of resources, particularly where you may deal with a relatively small top-level name that can be managed on top of the infrastructure of existing either ccTLDs or gTLDs. And also suggest, I think, that one the organization really wants to see as a big improvement from the gTLD process is that we are getting new top-level names in regions of the world that are not currently using domain names in any significant way. And certainly that's a personal objective that I would like to see achieved. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this? If not, we will put the resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hands. Rita, how do you vote? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: A very happy aye. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. That completes the list of resolutions in that class of business. Is there any other business? Yes, Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Peter, I would like to thank the board for this initiative and confirm the GAC is ready to participate in this working group. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Is there -- We have a slot in case there is any other business that has arisen. Does any board member have any other business that -- Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thanks, Peter. I will make the statement for Spanish, so to give the opportunity for those who have ear phones. (in Spanish.) (scribes receive no translation). [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. I'm not sure whether the lights going out at that precise moment was a sympathy vote. Does any other board member have an item of general business that they would like to raise? If not, we will move on to some thanks that we must do in relation to first of all some departing volunteers from our community. We're about to lose some members of the ccNSO Council, and I would ask Dennis Jennings, who, as he explained earlier this morning, was once the manager of a ccTLD, but can't find the authorization e-mail from Jon Postel to prove it. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: I did remember, it was actually a phone call. And back then making a phone call from Ireland to California was expensive and not necessarily guaranteed to get through. So the world has changed a lot in that time. Thanks to departing ccNSO volunteers. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process. Whereas, ICANN, in recognition of these contributions -- whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service end. And whereas, the terms of the following volunteers from the ccNSO Council expire after the Nairobi meeting: Oscar Alejandro Robles- Garay, .MX. Oscar has been the ccNSO Councillor ever since the first ccNSO Council in 2004. Oscar Moreno, .PR. Oscar joined the ccNSO Council in 2007. 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 their future endeavors. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much, Dennis. I will be delighted as a former member of that community to second that resolution as well. And I suggest that we carry that in the usual way by acclamation. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We are so dependent on the good work of so many people, and it's just nice to have the opportunity to thank departing councillors. As they say at the Oscars, unfortunately Oscar can't be with us tonight that we will be sending a certificate that we have had prepared to each of these departing councillors and to future departing councillors so they have a permanent reminder and permanent thanks from ICANN for their work. We come then to another very important requirement which is to say thank you to the sponsors of this meeting. And I'd ask Katim, if you would take us through a resolution formally acknowledging and thanking the sponsors of the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The board wishes to thank the following sponsors: Commission of Kenya - CCK, Afilias Limited, NeuStar, Incorporated, .CO, VeriSign, Inc., GMO Registry, Incorporated, InterNetX, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), AfriNIC, Public Interest Registry, China Organizational Name Administration Center, .PRO, dotMobi, RU-CENTER, those are the Russians, Nairobi Net Online, Kenya ICT Board, TESPOK that's Telecommunication Service Providers Association of Kenya, Safaricom, Zain, Internet Solution, Access Kenya Seacom, UUNET. Additional thanks for the support of BCD Travel, KICTAnet, Kenya ICT Action Network, and Jamii Tours, shuttle buses. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Katim. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thank you, Ram. I suggest in the usual way that we also pass this by acclamation. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Suzanne, I wonder if I can ask you to thank the scribes, the interpreters, the staff, and the event and hotel team who have all done an extraordinary job here. Can I call on you to move the resolution thanking them? >>SUZANNE WOOLF : Peter, I am having a little bit of trouble seeing that, though. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. Perhaps I could ask Gonzalo to do that. You have a copy of that resolution, Gonzalo. Why don't you step in. Suzanne, with your permission we will have someone here who can see it do it. >>SUZANNE WOOLF : That would probably be a good idea. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That way we will probably make sure we capture all the people that need to be thanked. >>GONZALO NAVARRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the scribes, interpreters, staff, event and the hotel teams. 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. The board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLAN events services, incorporated. 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. The board would also like to thank the Kenyatta International Conference Centre and all the event staff for their support, as well as Sarova Stanley, Fairmont The Norfolk, and the Laico Regency hotels. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Gonzalo. And I'm sorry to drop that on you on short notice but very well handled. Is there a seconder for that resolution? I see Dennis. Any discussion? If not, let's carry that by acclamation also. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The effort by the scribes is extraordinary when you consider that they are sitting in another country listening to this across the Internet and transcribing it back here in real time. We come then to the local hosts, and I would ask Rod Beckstrom to deal with that. Rod has had a lot to deal with the local hosts in the preparation leading up to this meeting and during the meeting. So Rod, you have the honor of thanking the local hosts. >>ROD BECKSTROM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would now like to formally express our deep appreciation for our Kenyan hosts. We thank all of you and we thank them as we reach the end of another successful ICANN meeting. I think everyone here knows that we're faced with some difficult decisions related to security. I was delighted when the board agreed to persevere with the choice of Nairobi. They have been proved right. Our stay here has been peaceful. The weather has been fabulous. And the participation, splendid. Our Kenyan hosts could not have been more hospitable. We have all enjoyed our stay enormously. I think most of you know that Kenya has offered to host the first of what we all hope will be a new series of meetings of the Internet Governance Forum, the IGF, here in Nairobi in 2011. We all support the IGF process, and I would like you to join me in endorsing the Kenyan offer. I for one look forward with genuine pleasure to returning to Nairobi to participate. I would also like to recognize the many individuals involved in organizing this event. The board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer, Kenya Network Information Center, KeNIC, for their support, with special thanks to the Honorable Minister Samuel Poghisio of ICT in Kenya. Also Dr. Bitange Ndemo, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication. Charles Njoroge, Director General of CCK. Abraham Ondeng, Minsitry of Information and Communication, local host organizing committee. Sammy Buruchara, chairman of KeNIC, local organizing committee. Joe Kiragu, .KE administrator, KeNIC, slash, local organizing committee. Alice Munyua, CCK Board, KeNIC, Local Organizing Committee. Michael Katundu, CCK, Local Organizing Committee. Rachel Alwala, CCK, Local Organizing Committee. Eliud Ikua, CCK, Local Organizing Committee. John Otido, KICC, Local Organizing Committee. Hillary Akoto, KICC, Local Organizing Committee. Terry Opiko, KICC, Local Organizing Committee. Charles Njoroge, TESPOK, KIXP, Local Organizing Committee. Fiona Asonga, TESPOK, KIXP, Local Organizing Committee. Nicholas Wambugu, TESPOK, KIXP. Michuki Mwangi, ISOC, KIXP. Mercy Mwasaru, Security Committee. Stephen Munguti, Security Committee. Muriuki Muriithi, KICTANet, Local Organizing Committee. Mutua Muthusi, CCK, Local Organizing Committee. Viola Munyoki, CCK, Local Organizing Committee. and Antony Mugambi, KeNIC, board. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well done. Thank you, Rod. A long list of very important people who have made this meeting a success. And we need a seconder for that resolution. I see Bruce. And Raimundo, would you like to seek? Would anybody like to speak to that? Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just briefly, Peter. One I think that I have really appreciated in the venue is just how friendly all the staff have been. And I have never met such friendly security staff. In some countries, they are trained to never smile. But here, it is a very pleasant experience, even getting in and out of the venue. And I've really enjoyed the experience. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Would anyone else like to comment on their experience at the meeting? Mike. >>MICHAEL SILBER: I think just to say welcome to Africa, and we look forward to having everybody back in 2011. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excellent. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: This is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa. I've been to Egypt a number of times, but I've never been south of Egypt in Africa. This has been a wonderful experience, and I'll be back. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Would anyone else like to comment? [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Vanda. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Hello. A sante to all the Kenya community. Really warm people. And I was very pleased to be here. And ALAC was the first one to support the idea to come here, to stay here with these fantastic people. And we have a pleasure to announce one more ALS from this Kenya region. This time, they enter into our agreement in Nairobi at this time. So it's a very, very pleasure time, and a sante again for all people that welcomed us here. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Vanda. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Katim, and then Jean-Jacques -- sorry, Ray, Katim, Jean-Jacques. >>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Peter. As many people know, this is not my first time to be in Nairobi. And I really enjoyed my time here again. And I really enjoyed the ability to be able to meet up again with old acquaintances and make new plans for the future. And I hope we come back soon. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray. Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am especially delighted to hear just the incredibly warm compliments that Kenya is getting. And I think very deservedly so. They are a very warm and hospitable nation, wonderful country. Nairobi, an incredibly beautiful city, as you all have seen in the last couple of days. And I certainly encourage all of you to come back, most especially to come to attend the IGF. And very briefly, I'd like to add to that, we have a saying in my language, if you list, you will make a mistake. And I think we just inadvertently forgot to mention to thank also the minister of information and communications, who has an incredibly effusive personality. You all saw him at the gala dinner that we had. And also to mention particularly the help that we've gotten from the chairperson of the board of directors of CCK, Charles Okundi, who you might remember has been with us since Mexico City, attending a lot of ICANN meetings, basically pushing and pulling for Kenya to host this ICANN meeting. So thank you very much to them again. And wonderful place. And please come back anytime, like Mike said, to Africa. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Chairman. First a word of thanks and appreciation for the kindness, the distinction also, the hosts have shown us all. My second point is more business-oriented. It's to say that we on the board, and certainly those of us who are on the Public Participation Committee, go away from this important meeting with a lot of indications of what is necessary in order to improve yet again the public participation element, especially in the developing world and for the benefit of those who are from or in these countries. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. It falls now to me to pass -- to move the final resolution of the Nairobi meeting. That's the thanks to you, to the meeting participants. And the resolution reads as follows: Whereas, the success of ICANN depends on the contributions of participants at the meetings; and. Whereas, the participants engaged in fruitful and productive dialogue at this meeting; It's resolved, the board thanks the participants for their contributions. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thanks very much, I'd like also that to be carried by acclamation. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The hosts. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. And just before I close the meeting, I would like to personally thank the members of the board. When we started at the beginning of this week, I indicated that I was going to ride you hard, that there was going to be a lot of work required of you this week. And I think there has been. And I want to thank you for that. And I want to do that in front of the community so that they appreciate the effort that's gone in hour after hour, morning after morning, lunch after lunch, evening after evening, until last night, when we finished after 1:00. I know some people will be disappointed in relation to the EOI decision, which was a closely-fought issue on the board. Just to note that we've had eight resolutions at this meeting on -- relating to the implementation of new gTLDs and three on the implementation of IDNs, and, of course, the very important resolution dealing, as we have to do, with the ICM. There's been an incredible workload. I want to say personally thank you very much to all of you. Well done. The meeting is closed. I look forward to seeing you in Brussels. >>ROD BECKSTROM: And, Peter, I believe that last applause was to confirm both resolutions, 25 and 26. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Of course. Thank you. As I say, meeting closed. We'll see you in Brussels. (Meeting concluded.)