Explanation/Background: This information is posted for a thirty day public comment period commencing at 12:00 pm Pacific Daylight Time (19:00 UTC) on 24 August 2010 through 11:59 a.m. Pacific Daylight time (18:59 UTC) on 23 September 2010.

Comments can be submitted to xxx-revised-icm-agreement@icann.org and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-revised-icm-agreement/.

Background

In 2004, ICM submitted an application in response to an ICANN Request for Proposals to create new Sponsored Top-Level Domain registries. A first proposed registry agreement for .XXX was posted on 16 April 2006. In May 2006, the Board voted not to approve the agreement as proposed, and two revisions to the proposed registry agreement were posted for public comment in January and February of 2007 (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05jan07.htm).

On 30 March 2007, the Board rejected the proposed agreement. http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-30mar07.htm#_Toc36876524. After ICM sought an independent review of the Board’s denial of ICM’s application for the .XXX sTLD, the Independent Review Panel issued a declaration. On 25 June 2010, the Board determined to accept and act in accordance with some of the Panel’s findings and directed ICANN staff to conduct expedited due diligence of ICM and to proceed into draft contract negotiations with ICM. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#5. On 5 August 2010, the Board directed staff, upon receipt of ICM’s application documentation, to post ICM’s supporting documents and proposed registry agreement for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#9.

Consistent with the Board’s Resolutions of 25 June 2010 and 5 August 2010, ICANN staff is posting the following materials for public comment:

Due Diligence Documentation submitted by ICM Registry:

• ICM Cover Letter to ICANN [PDF, 58 KB] ¹
• ICM Registry Certificate of Good Standing [PDF, 23 KB]
• Sponsoring Organization Agreement [PDF, 108 KB]
• Appendix A – IFFOR Policy Development Process [PDF, 97 KB]
• Appendix B – IFFOR Baseline Policies [PDF, 76 KB]
• Appendix C – Compliance Reporting System [PDF, 171 KB]
• Appendix D – IFFOR Organizational Chart [PDF, 25 KB]
• Appendix E – Office of Ombudsman Charter [PDF, 57 KB]
• Registrar Flowthroughs to Registrants [PDF, 70 KB]
• Terms for Verification Credentials Contract [PDF, 82 KB]
• ICM Registry Policy: Preventing Abusive Registration [PDF, 55 KB]
• International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) Certificate of Good Standing and Articles of Incorporation [PDF, 90 KB]
• IFFOR Bylaws [PDF, 134 KB]
• 9 July 2010 Letter from Afilias Noting Reconfirmation as Service Provider [PDF, 38 KB]
• ICM & IFFOR Responsibilities and Obligations [PDF, 27 KB]

Revised Proposed Registry Agreement for the .XXX sTLD

The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement was submitted by ICM Registry after negotiations with ICANN staff. The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement has not been considered or approved by the ICANN Board. The Revised Proposed Registry Agreement is revised from the proposed agreement considered by the Board in March 2007.

The documents are provided in both clean and redlined form for ease in identifying revisions.

Revised Proposed Registry Agreement:

• Clean [PDF, 390 KB]
• Redline [PDF, 538 KB]

Revised Proposed Appendix S to Registry Agreement:

• Clean [PDF, 214 KB]
• Redline [PDF, 417 KB]

Some of the major changes between the 2007 versions and the current proposed versions are:

• The agreement is revised to reflect changes to address DNSSEC handling and current technical specifications, as well as links to current ICANN processes;
• The agreement is revised to be consistent with most sTLD agreements in the renewal terms.
• The termination, assignment and subcontracting provisions have been revised and clarified.
• Modifications to Appendix S to further define the sTLD community and to provide the requirements of ICM in developing and implementing policy for the TLD through IFFOR, consistent with the ICM/IFFOR Sponsoring Organization Agreement and the sTLD charter.

ICM has committed to sign a standard release of all claims against ICANN in conjunction with the execution of a Registry Agreement.

¹ ICM’s Cover Letter identifies additional information submitted to ICANN on a confidential basis. Those documents are not publicly posted.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The ccNSO and GNSO Councils have established a joint working group to identify and explore issues and topics of common interest, relating to the introduction of IDN TLD's if any, and of relevance to both the cNSO and GNSO, report on such an identified issues to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils and propose a methodology to address the issue. The charter of the joint ccNSO and GNSO IDN working group (JIG) can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg.htm.

As part of its work the JIG has published an Initial Report on policy aspects regarding the introduction of Single Character IDN TLD's. This Report is a stocktaking of the policy issues regarding the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs and some viewpoints on possible policy implementations that could address those issues. The Report can be found here: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf [PDF, 192 KB]. To be most helpful you are kindly requested to submit your comments by 9 September 2010.

Staff Support: Bart Boswinkel

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: Per its Brussels statement, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) now opens a public forum that will enable ‘the Community to provide inputs and suggestions at any point during the ATRT review’.

Please submit your comments to the public forum email address:
atrt-public-input@icann.org

All comments sent to atrt-public-input@icann.org may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-public-input/

In addition to the forum, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team resolved to create a private email address where community Members could confidentially provide their input: atrt-private-input@icann.org

The ATRT also reiterates its wish to receive responses to their questions to the community - http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#atrt – and feedback on any other issues relevant to the work of the Review Team.

Please note that translations of the ATRT questions to the community (EN) are available:

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The ccNSO Council has established a delegation, redelegation and retirement Working Group (DRDWG) to advise the ccNSO Council whether it should launch a policy development process to recommend changes to the current policies for delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs.

As part of its work the DRDWG has published a report [PDF, 1.16 MB] on the methodology it has developed and has identified issues and classified these by using this methodology. The working group is soliciting input and comment from the community on this report, in particular on the methodology, the selection of documentation and statements and classification of issues. To be most helpful you are kindly requested to submit your comments by 15 September 2010 .

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: On June 15 2010, ITEMS International, the independent consultants selected to carry out the external review of ccNSO, released their final report [PDF, 5.04 MB], presenting their conclusions and recommendations.

At the Brussels meeting, the ccNSO requested that ITEMS International publish an addendum [PDF, 648 KB] to its report which would extensively disclose all results of the survey/interviews.

Moreover, the questions raised during the exchange at ICANN’s 38 meeting indicated that the initial timeline allocated for the public comment process would not provide the ccTLDs with sufficient time to submit their written responses to the report.

In light of this request for additional time, the WG Members unanimously decided to extend the public comment period to 15 September 2010.

For more information about the ccNSO review, please refer to the ccNSO review webpage.

Updated Announcement | Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: As part of GNSO Improvements, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team (WT) was tasked to developing recommendations for a new GNSO policy development process. ICANN’s policies have wide-ranging impact on how domain names are handled in the gTLD environment, so the method of developing the policies matters. The Work team has considered questions such as: who has the right to introduce a new issue into the PDP; how much background data should participants have before deciding policy; and, what are the possible outcomes of a PDP? The PDP-WT has now published its Initial Report [PDF, 2.36 MB], containing amongst others forty-five (45) draft Recommendations and a flow chart that is intended to serve as the basis for the new Annex A of the ICANN by-laws, for Community input. Your feedback is requested.

Following the closing of the public comment period, the PDP-WT will analyze the comments received and continue its deliberations in view of finalizing the report for submission to the Policy Process Steering Committee for review and ultimately to the GNSO Council for approval.

Translations of the Executive Summary:

• [PDF, 2.48 MB] العربية
• 中文 [PDF, 840 KB]
• Français [PDF, 6.02 MB]
• Русский [PDF, 3.71 MB]
• Español [PDF, 9.05 MB]

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: On 27 August 2009, the Board approved in principle the recommendation of the Board review Working Group (BRWG) to add one voting director from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors and removing the present At-Large Advisory Committee Liaison to the ICANN Board. The BRWG issued its final report [PDF, 116 KB] in February 2010, and noted the expectation that "the selection process will be designed, approved and implemented in time for the new Director to be seated at the 2010 Annual General Meeting."

The Board's Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is charged with providing a set of suggested actions to address this recommendation. As part of the SIC’s work, in consultation with the Board Governance Committee, the SIC agreed that the term of the Board Director selected by the At-Large Community should coincide with the terms of the Board Directors selected by the Sponsoring Organizations, so as to allow the Nominating Committee to consider the full composition of the non-Nominating Committee-appointed Board membership when making its appointments.

One item necessary to implement the recommendation is a change to Articles VI and XI of the ICANN Bylaws to recognize the new Seat 15 on the Board and remove the ALAC Liaison position. The Office of the General Counsel, in consultation with the SIC and the staff supporting the At-Large, identified recommended Bylaws amendments necessary to allow the seating of the Director selected by the At-Large Community in line with Board and committee directives. At its meeting on 25 June 2010, the Board directed staff to post these recommended Bylaws amendments for public comment, so that the Board can take action on these proposed amendments no later than at its 28 October 2010 meeting.

The relevant portion of the proposed Bylaws revisions, in redline for ease of review, can be found here:

• English [PDF, 120 KB]
• Español [PDF, 44 KB]
• Français [PDF, 60 KB]

The subject of this public comment forum is limited to the proposed Bylaws revisions necessary to allow a voting director to be sat, and does not include the design of the selection process. Further information on the work of the At-Large Community to design a process for the selection of the voting director can be found at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_director_appointment_process.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

ICANN is opening a 30-day public comment, from 1 July 2010 through 11:59 p.m. Pacific Daylight time on 31 July 2010.

To Submit Comments: bylaws-amend-al-director@icann.org

To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-al-director/

Staff Responsible: Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel, ICANN and Heidi Ullrich, Director for At-Large, ICANN

Announcement | Comments |Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: As part of ICANN's Transparency and Accountability Wiki Project, ICANN Staff has created searchable wiki pages to provide the public with easy-to-access information on every substantive resolution approved by ICANN's Board. In order to get initial public feedback that can serve as the basis for further improvements before full implementation, the 2009 resolutions have been loaded on the wiki. These pages are a work-in-progress.  In the interest of getting early customer input, we decided to publish these resolution pages now.  Each resolution has a wiki page that provides basic information, including when it was approved, what it's about, the status of the resulting implementation actions, and links to additional information. Each wiki page contains a comment box to allow individuals to share information about the resolution and its implementation.

Interested individuals are encouraged to use this wiki and give us feedback.  Do you like this wiki format? Have we chosen the right search categories? Is all the basic information provided in an easy-to-understand way?  Do you have suggestions for additional information on particular resolutions? Please share your thoughts to help us provide you with a more useful service. 

Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: Greg Rosston from Stanford University and Michael Katz from the University of California Berkeley were commissioned by ICANN to do the following: (1) survey published studies and resources that describe the potential impacts of new gTLD introduction: (2) examine theoretical arguments about benefits and costs of increased gTLDs; (3) and consider and propose new empirical studies that could help assess costs and benefits. The studies should be planned and structured to address open questions. This publication [PDF, 336 KB] is part one of a two phase study. The second phase will begin after the closure and analysis of the public comments.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The "Draft Program Development Snapshot #2 - High Security Zone Top-Level Domain Advisory Group (HSTLD Advisory Group)" [PDF, 368 KB] is part of a series of activities undertaken by ICANN staff and community experts in response to specific community comments. This document works towards development of a voluntary program and supporting control standards that could be adopted to provide an enhanced level of trust and security. The HSLTD Advisory Group continues to work on this. Relevant next steps include review and approval of material necessary to support the HSTLD purpose, goals and principles.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The SO/AC Working Group was recently formed to look into applicant support for new gTLDs and is composed by members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). The formation and activities of this working group is a direct response to a recent Board resolution during the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi during recognizing the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. The Board requested stakeholders "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs." See resolution here: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20. The working group continues to evaluate and propose recommendations regarding specific support to new gTLD applicants in justified cases. The current publication [PDF, 772 KB] is a status report and findings to date, with a view to solicit public comments to guide further work.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: There is a dedicated public comment page designed to collect your input on the Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4 and the related supporting documentation. The Guidebook describes the process of applying for new generic top-level domains (New gTLDs).

On the dedicated page you will see the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4 available in its entirety as well as in the six individual modules. You can either comment on the overall guidebook or comment per module, by area of interest. Also, with each module's discussion area, you will find a list of documents that serve as explanatory memoranda or reports specific to that particular topic. This series of supporting documents are designed to supplement understanding of the implementation work for the program. A red-lined, annotated version of the documents is provided to facilitate understanding of the changes that were made in progressing from Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 to Version 4.

ICANN expects to engage in a productive and robust dialogue with the Internet community throughout this consultative process.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The proposed New gTLD Program budget is an analysis of gTLD program costs, including an assessment of the general risk and the timing required to complete certain remaining activities necessary for operational readiness. To ensure costs are appropriately managed, tracked and disclosed, the gTLD budget has been organized according to three phases; 1) development, 2) deployment, and 3) application processing. This paper [PDF, 116 KB] (with June 1, 2010 revision) discusses the definition and timing of each phase as well as key activities to be accomplished.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN has observed community comment concerning the interpretation of RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3. In order to provide clarity, ICANN is posting for public comment the following draft advisory http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-en.pdf [PDF, 216 KB]. The forum will be open through 9 July 2010.

Community members are invited to review the draft advisory and comment on all aspects of the document. At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted, prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions, and post the final version of the advisory.

The Public Comment Forum is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-3773

Staff Responsible: David A. Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) recently completed a study commissioned by ICANN to determine the percentage of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info) that contain accurate WHOIS data. Today, the draft report is being posted for review and comment through 15 April 2010.

Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. The information in the report is intended to contribute to the ongoing community discussion regarding WHOIS and should be useful in any future policy development process regarding WHOIS.

The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/whois-accuracy-study-17jan10-en.pdf [PDF, 432 KB]

The Process Going Forward:

At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

ICANN Staff is opening a 60-day public comment, from 15 February through 15 April 2010, and invites community comments on the draft report.

The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#whois-accuracy-study

To Submit Comments: whois-accuracy-study@icann.org

To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-accuracy-study/

Staff Responsible: David A. Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB] on 31 May. The PEDNR WG was tasked to address questions in relation to what extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate.

In the Initial Report, the WG has reviewed current registrar and ICANN practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. Furthermore, in order to assess the views of the WG members and determine where there might be agreement or consensus on a possible approach forward, a survey was conducted amongst the WG membership, details of which are also included in the Initial Report. The WG is now looking for your input on the Initial Report to help inform its deliberations going forward. Comments can be submitted directly to the public comment forum (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201008-en.htm#pednr-initial-report) and/or you can provide your input by responding to the following short survey (see http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4). As prescribed by the ICANN by-laws, the public comment forum will remain open for a period of 20 days until 1 August 2010.

Further information:

• PEDNR PDP Initial Report – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf [PDF, 1.02 MB]
• PEDNR PDP Initial Report – Executive Summary
• English [PDF, 128 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 149 KB]
• 中 文 [PDF, 270 KB]
• Français [PDF, 220 KB]
• Español [PDF, 191 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 275 KB]
• PEDNR WG workspace – https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background:

Staff responsible: Margie Milam

The GNSO Vertical Integration Working Group is seeking comments on its Initial Report [PDF, 731 KB] on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries. The Initial Report describes various proposed solutions for restrictions on vertical integration between registrars and registries for adoption in the New gTLD Program. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposed vertical integration models that are described the Initial Report.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: On 22 July 2010, the Chair of the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) forwarded a Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, ASNs, for ratification by the ICANN Board. This policy proposal modifies the existing Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, ASNs, by extending the period during which the RIRs can operate two separate pools of numbers until 31 December 2010. An Autonomous System Number (ASN) is a number used to uniquely identify a network connected to more than one other network that also controls its own routing policy. The current policy supports the introduction of 32-bit ASNs with a timeline during which RIRs can operate distinct pools of 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs. That timeline ended on 31 December 2009 and requires ICANN to now treat all ASNs as coming from a single pool of numbers.

The reason for the proposal is that some equipment and software vendors have been slower to offer support for 32-bit ASNs than was originally anticipated by the addressing community. This may create a problem in case a new network needs a 16-bit ASN that the relevant RIR cannot assign as its pool of 16-bit ASNs is empty, nor can the RIR request more such ASNs from IANA as the RIR still has an ample supply of 32-bit ASNs. By extending the period during which RIRs can operate distinct pools of 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs, the RIRs will be able to make sure they have sufficient 16-bit ASNs to meet the needs within their regions while vendors complete their implementations of 32-bit ASN capabilities.

For the full text of the proposal, click here [PDF, 69 KB].

The development of Global Internet Number Resource Policies is the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding between the ASO/NRO and ICANN. There are also specific ICANN Board Review Procedures for handling global policy proposals in this context. In line with the procedures, ICANN is issuing a 21-day final call for public comments on the proposal, closing on 13 August 2010.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: A public comment process by survey, 45 days in length, has opened related to ICANN International meetings. This is the first of three stages in a consultation process entitled “Meetings for the Next Decade” which will run through most of the remainder of calendar year 2010.

Full information on this process can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/meetings2010/.

Announcement | See Responses to Survey | See Emailed Responses | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: On 25 June 2010, the Board approved the posting of proposed Bylaws amendments for public comment. The proposed amendments would allow the Chair of the ICANN Board to receive remuneration for service to the organization. Currently, the Bylaws do not allow the Chair or any member of the Board to receive compensation for services as directors.

The Board Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee have both engaged in substantial work on the issue of providing remuneration to the Chair of the Board. After consideration of comparability data and advice from an international consulting firm, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board consider compensating the chair of the ICANN Board. In order to proceed with consideration of the topic, the Board directed staff to post the revisions to the Bylaws to allow for compensation, and then the Board will reconsider the matter after taking public comments into account.

No member of the Board participating in the deliberations or voting on the issue was determined to have a conflict. The Board Chair did not participate in the deliberations or voting on this issue.

The relevant portion of the proposed Bylaws revisions, in redline for ease of review, can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-vi-22-25jun10-en.pdf [PDF, 48 KB].

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

ICANN is opening a 30-day public comment, from 12:00 pm Pacific Daylight Time (19:00 UTC) on 6 July 2010 through 11:59 a.m. Pacific Daylight time (18:59 UTC) on 5 August 2010.

The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201008-en.htm#bylaws-amend-chair-comp

To Submit Comments: bylaws-amend-chair-comp@icann.org

To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-chair-comp/

Staff Responsible: Amy Stathos, Deputy General Counsel, ICANN

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) Working published its Initial Report on 29 May 2010. Today a public comment forum opens for a twenty-day period as prescribed by the ICANN by-laws. The IRTP Part B WG is looking for your input on the Initial Report and in particular on the preliminary conclusions and recommendations put forward in the report, including a proposed Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy. All those interested are encouraged to provide their input so that the WG can take these into account when finalizing its report following the closing of the public comment forum.

IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-initial-report-29may10-en.pdf [PDF, 765 KB]

Translations of the Executive Summary:

• [PDF, 159 KB] العربية
• 中文 [PDF, 217 KB]
• Français [PDF, 160 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 245 KB]
• Español [PDF, 170 KB]

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: As part of its program of Organizational Reviews, ICANN has undertaken a review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), whose role is to advise the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet’s naming and address allocation systems. Organizational Reviews are part of ICANN’s program of continuous improvement and are intended to ensure an in-depth examination of the role and operation of key structures of ICANN, with support from external, independent professional consultants. Oversight of the Organizational Review processes is exerted by the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), which is a standing Committee of the ICANN Board. The SIC is authorized to set up specific Working Groups for each of the Reviews.

In 2009, the ICANN Board appointed an SSAC Review Working Group (WG), which engaged in extensive consultations with the SSAC community. In its final report published 29 January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf [PDF, 282 KB], the SSAC Review WG recommended SSAC membership appointments be for a term of three years renewable by the Board at the recommendation of the SSAC Chair indefinitely, and that the terms be staggered to allow for the terms of one-third of the SSAC members to expire at the end of every year. On 12 March 2010, the Board received the SSAC final report and directed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) to identify actions necessary to address the recommendations within the report, at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#1.6. Article XI, Section 2(2)(b) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI of the Bylaws states that the SSAC chair and members shall be appointed by the Board, and does not state any term for such appointments. Staff supporting the SIC have identified that a Bylaws amendment is required in order to implement the recommended change to the SSAC membership appointments, and the SIC recommended that the Board approve that proposed Bylaws amendments to this effect are posted for public comment.

On 25 June 2010 the Board approved resolution 2010.06.25.04 directing the ICANN CEO to have staff draft proposed Bylaws amendments addressing the recommendations arising out of the SSAC review WG and to post the proposed amendments for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days.

Document Links:

• “Review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee: Final Report of the SSAC Review Working Group”: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/ssac/ssac-review-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf [PDF, 282 KB]
• ICANN Board Resolution 2010.06.25.04: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#1.3
• Proposed Amendments to ICANN Bylaws Article XI: http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-ix-2-02jul10-en.pdf [PDF, 72 KB]

The Process From Here:

At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions for the ICANN Board to review.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

At the direction of the ICANN Board, the Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 02 July through 1 August 2010 and invites community comments concerning this document.

The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201008-en.htm#bylaws-amend-article-xi

To submit comments: bylaws-amend-article-xi@icann.org

To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-article-xi/

For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02jul10-en.htm

Staff Responsible: Julie Hedlund and Samantha Eisner

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments