Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 3 May 2026

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.01 – 2026.05.03.03

Today's action does two things: (1) expands the scope of uses allowed for the funds within the Supplemental Fund for Implementation of Community Recommendations (SFICR); and (2) updates the ICANN Investment Policy to rename the SFICR to the "Project Fund" and to set target and maximum thresholds for the ICANN Reserve Fund.

Updating the SFICR to the Project Fund

The SFICR was created in FY21 to establish segregated resources to increase the capacity of the organization to address projects that are multi-year and focus on community recommendations (for policies or resulting from reviews and cross-community working groups) that are approved by the Board but do not fit within the annual Budget. All transfer of funds into the SFICR or approval to use funds in the SFICR require Board approval.

With today's action, the existing SFICR is being converted to a "Project Fund" with an expanded scope of projects that can qualify for funding. To date, the SFICR was limited to funding only those projects resulting from Board-approved community recommendations. Now, those funds can be used more broadly, including expenditures such as building improvements and upgrades to technology infrastructure, security, and equipment as examples of work that were previously not allowed to be funded out of the SFICR, in addition to projects to implement Board-approved community recommendations. To reflect this broader scope, the Board is renaming the SFICR to the "Project Fund".

ICANN has been allocating available funds to the SFICR (upon Board approval) when a closed fiscal year resulted in a surplus and the Operating Fund and Reserve Fund were above their minimum targets. The Project Fund will continue to be funded and replenished similarly. As with the SFICR, any usage of the Project Fund still requires Board approval and spend against the Fund will be included in ICANN's financial reporting.

The change in name needs to be reflected in the ICANN Investment Policy, and the Board today approves those conforming changes.

ICANN Reserve Fund Targets

To date, the Reserve Fund requires a minimum level of 12 months of budgeted operating expenses. While this minimum level will remain in force, the ICANN Board is now including with the ICANN Investment Policy that the Reserve Fund's target balance shall be 16 months of budgeted operating expenses and the maximum balance to be 21 months of operating expenses. Establishing a target above the minimum level supports the continuity of funding even when there is a market downturn, or to absorb approved expenditures out of the Reserve Fund. Setting a maximum level for the Reserve Fund supports the redeployment of funds in excess of the maximum per the Hierarchy of Funds as described in the ICANN Investment Policy.

These modifications to the ICANN Investment Policy will enable ICANN to better manage the Funds in accordance with ICANN's mission.

Community Consultation

Both of these proposals were published as part of the Public Comment proceeding for the ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY27 Operating Plans and Budgets. The Public Comment Summary Report can be found here. On the SFICR expansion, Public Comments noted support for the expansion but cautioned that the use of the funds must still be subject to ICANN Board approval and oversight. On the Reserve Fund, Public Comments revealed that establishing targets for the Reserve Fund was supported but its balance should not be excessive. Establishing the Reserve Fund's maximum balance ensures that excess funds can be redeployed to the Project Fund, which can be used to fund initiatives in the public interest and consistent with ICANN's mission.

Adopting the suggested modifications is expected to be in the public interest and consistent with ICANN's mission in that it supports Strategic Objective 2.1 of the FY26-30 Strategic Plan.

This action is not expected to have any fiscal impact, or any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.05.03.04 – 2026.05.03.05

It is good governance for an organization and a President and CEO to have annual objectives, including specified key results, key performance indicators and milestones to be achieved.  These objectives are necessary in order to evaluate the President and CEO's performance throughout the fiscal year.  Like last year, the objectives are split into two separate sets, one set that are organizational objectives and one set that are individual objectives for the President and CEO.

The Compensation Committee discussed and agreed with the President and CEO and recommended that the Board approve the Organizational Objectives for FY27 and the CEO Objectives for FY27.  The Board has evaluated these objectives and agrees that they are appropriate and consistent with ICANN's Strategic and Operating plans.

Taking this decision is in furtherance of ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest in that the Organizational Objectives for FY27 and the CEO Objectives for FY27 are fully consistent with ICANN's Strategic and Operating plans.

The decision to adopt Organizational Objectives for FY27 and the CEO Objectives for FY27 will not have a direct fiscal impact on ICANN outside of the impact that the overall

This decision will not have an impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.06 – 2026.05.03.08

On 16 December 2025, a Draft of the ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, Draft ICANN FY26 Operating Plan and Budget and Draft IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget were posted for public comment. The published Draft ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, Draft ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget and Draft IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget were based on ICANN's internal planning needs, as well as numerous discussions with the ICANN community, including extensive consultations with ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and other stakeholder groups.

Public comments to the ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget and the IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget were considered and responses were summarized in a summary report on public comments published on 02 April 2026. In addition, the following consultation activities were carried out:

• 15 October 2025 – Community webinar held during ICANN84 Prep Week through the Planning and Finance Update.

• 18 December 2025 and 14 January 2026 – Community webinars were held to review the Draft ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, Draft ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget and Draft IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget published for public comment.

• 23 February 2026 – the summary of comments received through the public comment process were shared in a public session during the ICANN85 Prep week, including with representatives of the ICANN bodies that submitted the public comments, to help ensure the comments were adequately understood and appropriate consideration was given.

• 23 April 2026 – A community webinar was held to discuss the Public Comment Summary Report and present any subsequent revisions made as a result of the feedback received through public comment.

• In addition to the public comment process, ICANN actively solicited community feedback and consulted with the ICANN community by other means from September 2025 - March 2026, including attendance and presentations for the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), the At-Large Operations, Finance, and Budget Working Group (OFB-WG), and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization Strategic and Operational Planning Standing Committee (ccNSO SOPC).

• The Draft FY27 PTI Operating Plan and Budget and Draft FY27 IANA Operating Plan and Budget are based on numerous discussions with ICANN staff and the ICANN Community, including extensive consultations with ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and other stakeholder groups throughout the prior several months. Preliminary consultations were conducted with stakeholders on FY27 priorities for PTI at ICANN84. These engagements were in the form of discussions with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees such as Generic Names Supporting Organization; Country Code Names Supporting Organization Strategic and Operational Planning Standing Committee (ccNSO SOPC); At-Large Operations, Finance, and Budget Working Group (OFB-WG); as well as with the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

All comments received were considered, and where feasible and appropriate, revisions have been incorporated into the proposed-for-adoption ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, the proposed-for-adoption ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget, and the proposed-for-adoption IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget.

The IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget incorporates the PTI FY27 Operating Plan and Budget, which was approved by the PTI Board on 17 April 2026.

The ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget includes plans and budgeting for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round and the ICANN Grant Program. The ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget also establishes Registrar Fees, which will be reviewed by the Registrars following Board adoption of the plans.

Prior to the submission to the Board, ICANN staff reviewed the latest planning and financial assumptions—a key step in the process—which resulted in revisions to funding from the FY27 Plans posted for Public Comment. ICANN staff also added more detailed explanations to parts of the ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan and FY27 Operating Plan and Budget beyond what was posted for Public Comment. As a result of Public Comment, ICANN staff also updated the narrative and presentation aspects of the plans to provide clarity.

The ICANN FY27–31 Operating and Financial Plan, the ICANN FY26 Operating Plan and Budget and IANA FY27 Operating Plan and Budget will have a positive impact on ICANN in that together they provide a proper framework by which ICANN will be managed and operated, which also provides the basis for ICANN to be held accountable in a transparent manner.

This decision is in the public interest and within ICANN's mission, as it is fully consistent with ICANN's strategic and operational plans and is consistent with Strategic Objective 2: Enhance Organizational Excellence, from the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2030, and the results of which allow ICANN to satisfy its mission.

This decision will have a fiscal impact on ICANN. This should have a positive impact on the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system (DNS) with respect to any funding that is dedicated to those aspects of the DNS.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that has already been subject to public comment as noted above.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.09 – 2026.05.03.10

Today the Board is approving the addition of a Transition Article to the ICANN Bylaws that puts into place a pause on ICANN's obligations to conduct Specific Reviews while the community conversation of the evolution of reviews is proceeding.

Under the ICANN Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.6, ICANN is required to conduct three of the four Specific Reviews (Accountability and Transparency (ATRT); Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) and the Registration Directory System (RDS)) every five years, measured from the convening of the prior cycle's review team. The Consumer Choice and Trust (CCT) review is on a separate schedule based on the timing of the introduction of New gTLDs.

The challenges posed by this schedule have been well documented and discussed within the community, including issues of community overload in overlapping reviews and insufficient time to implement recommendations between review team cycles.

ICANN was supposed to convene ATRT4 in 2023, and has subsequently twice deferred the initiation of ATRT4, including in May 2025, to allow a community dialogue to focus on the future of reviews. The third iterations of the SSR and RDS reviews are also both deferred from their Bylaws-mandated starts, as there is a pending recommendation from the third ATRT review that ATRT4 should evaluate the timing and future of each of those reviews. The community and Board later chartered the Review of Reviews Cross Community Group (Reviews CCG), with the community, Board and ICANN staff members working together to produce recommendations on how to evolve and improve ICANN's review mechanisms. The Reviews CCG effort continues to progress.

In response to the Board's May 2025 resolution on deferral of the ATRT4 and convening a community dialogue on reviews, parts of the community pushed ICANN to consider a Bylaws amendment that would pause ICANN's obligations to initiate the Specific Reviews. After dialogue with leadership of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to explore the concept of a Transition Article, in January 2026 the ICANN Board initiated the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process to seek broader public comment on the proposal.

The proposal posted for Public Comment between 11 February – 13 April 2026 left the full language of Article 4, Section 4.6 intact in the event the community dialogue on the evolution of reviews does not result in proposed updates to how Specific Reviews are set out at Article 4, Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. The proposal established a 12-month deferral of ICANN's obligations to conduct reviews, extendable to up-to 24 months in limited and defined events, such as pending consideration of community recommendations on reviews. The proposal also established a sustainable schedule for the re-introduction of Specific Reviews even if no changes to the Bylaws at Article 4, Section 4.6 are achieved. Following Public Comment, as discussed more fully below, the version approved by the Board today differs in certain respects from the version posted for Public Comment. While leaving those principles intact, the approved version incorporates community requirements for regular reporting status, streamlining the conditions for extension, and establishing stronger safeguards on the sequencing of reviews if they are re-introduced.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

As required under the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process, the proposed Transition Article was posted for public comment, with 13 commenters, including five ICANN community groups (ALAC, Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, Registrars Stakeholder Group, Registries Stakeholder Group and the Root Server System Advisory Committee). While the full comment summary is available and has been considered, the Board identifies here the comments that resulted in updates to the Transition Article language, as well as some of the more specific concerns raised that were not taken on.

The commenters supported the use of the limited Transition Article as an extraordinary step, in part based on the progress to date of the Reviews CCG, while calling for periodic updates on progress during the pause. There was near-unanimous support of the length of the suspension, with no commenter seeking a pause shorter than 12 months or longer than the maximum of 24 months. Many commenters noted that 24 months provides sufficient time for the completion of the community's work. Many commenters noted that any extension should be accompanied by supporting rationale. The ALAC suggested that the pause be calculated from September 2025, when the Board approved the Reviews CCG charter, as opposed to the date the Bylaws amendment is approved and goes into force.

In response to these comments, the Transition Article has been updated to require that any extension be accompanied by a supporting rationale. The Board has also directed ICANN staff to assure that regular status reporting on the community dialogue is provided during the pause. As no other commenter raised an issue with the effective date of the Transition Article, no change was made in response to the ALAC's comment on this issue.

The ALAC proposed amendments to the criteria for extending the pause, including a concern that one of the criteria seemed duplicative and unnecessary. The ALAC also suggested that if the SOs and ACs were to come together to support an extension, the threshold for this collective action should be consensus based rather than a simple majority. The Board agrees with ALAC's identification of the potentially duplicative grounds for extending the pause. In response, the criteria for extending the pause have been streamlined, including removal of the standalone criteria relating to a pending Bylaws Amendment Process. As no other commenter sought a change to the threshold for collective community action criteria, no change was made. The Board notes that as there is no reserved Empowered Community power for the anticipated community action, nor does the Empowered Community have any consensus thresholds, there is no Bylaws concern created here with the establishment of the majority threshold in this situation.

On the restarting of Reviews, there were a variety of comments, with most commenters supportive of a 90-day window to restart. While many commenters supported starting with an ATRT, a few requested prioritization of an SSR Review. The ALAC supported the ATRT going first, but urged that the issue of whether the other reviews proceed should be a question reserved for the ATRT in line with pending ATRT3 recommendations. Multiple commenters cautioned that a firm 18-month window between initiation of reviews might lead to overlapping reviews, which has previously caused stress on the community and review cycles. In response to these comments the Transition Article has been updated in a few ways. First, it clarifies that in order for either of the reviews following the ATRT to initiate, the prior Specific Review must have concluded and delivered its final report. Second, the Transition Article recognizes that ATRT4 might make a recommendation that impacts the future of either or both of the SSR and RDS reviews and provides for a pause on the impacted review while necessary Bylaws amendments are pending. No change was made to the Transition Article to address the request to initiate the SSR Review sooner, as that would remove the ATRT4's ability to consider the future of that review.

Another area of significant comment concerned the criteria for the initiation of the next CCT review. Some commenters raised concerns with identifying a set number of delegated gTLDs as the basis for timing the initiation of the CCT review, noting that market conditions and the unknown number of applications could make a fixed number hard to reach and could result in an undefined delay. In response, the Transition Article has been updated to add flexibility in the event that the application volumes are lower than the 2000-application estimate used for planning for the 2026 Round. The Transition Article now sets the threshold at 500 delegated gTLDs or 25% of applied-for gTLDs if fewer than 2000 applications are received. This approach balances the need for sufficient data about the operation of the round to support a CCT review with the need to ensure that a CCT can and will occur. The Board notes the ALAC's preference for the timing of the next CCT to be based upon the ATRT3's recommendation of the first delegation from the 2026 Round, however this was not taken on, as other commenters noted that the larger number better supports the availability of data. The Board confirms that the use of the Transition Article does not change prior recommendations or subsequent Board actions regarding the development of an appropriate data framework to guide the next CCT review – this action is only on the timing of that review.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the Summary and Analysis of Public Comment and the proposed update to the Standard Bylaws Amendment.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

This action brings a positive community impact as it is directly responsive to community requests for a path to ensure consistency with ICANN's Bylaws on initiating reviews. In the event that the community's ongoing work does not result in a change to those obligations, this action is also positive in that it sets out a staged, workable schedule for the community to return to its work on Specific Reviews.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in approving Standard Bylaws Amendments as there are required community processes that must be observed. This action supports ICANN in meeting its strategic objective of evolving and promoting ICANN's multistakeholder model, as it allows for the community dialogue on reviews to continue without worry of the pending need to initiate a review that may no longer be seen as fit for purpose.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The initiation of the Standard Bylaws Amendment Process supports and advances the public interest as it demonstrates ICANN's responsiveness and intent to act in line with its Bylaws obligations.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

Public Comment was received and considered.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.05.03.11

What is the proposal being considered?

The Board approval of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process on Article 18, Section 18.2(b) is the next step in implementation of Recommendation 4 of the Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2). The Board accepted this and the other recommendations of the IFR2 on 14 September 2025. The IANA Naming Function Reviews are the tool through which the ICANN community reviews the performance of ICANN's affiliate Public Technical Identifiers' (PTI) performance of the IANA Naming Function against the contractual requirements set forth in the IANA Naming Function Contract.

This recommendation will change how ICANN measures the frequency of the periodic (i.e., regularly occurring) IANA Naming Function Reviews, which are mandated under Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws. Currently, these periodic IANA Naming Function Reviews are required to happen every five years, measured from the convening of the previous iteration of the IANA Naming Function Review. The IFR2 recommended that while IANA Naming Function Reviews should still happen on a five-year cycle, that cycle should be measured from the date that the previous IANA Naming Function Review team submitted its final report to the ICANN Board of Directors. This updated cadence allows time for each IANA Naming Function Review team to take the time necessary to conduct its review and complete the required community consultations to develop its recommendations, while also giving time for those recommendations to be implemented prior to convening the next review.

As an illustration, the IFR2 was convened on 10 September 2023. Its final report was delivered to the Board on 4 September 2025. If the Bylaws are not updated, the next periodic IANA Naming Function Review must be convened by 9 September 2028, less than three years from the time the IFR2 completed its work and submitted its report. Under the proposed update, the next IANA Naming Function Review would be required to convene by 3 September 2030, allowing up to five years between reviews, and more time for the next team to observe the impacts of the implementation of the IFR2 recommendations.

This extension of time would create a new outer time limit on when future periodic IANA Naming Function Reviews must be convened. If there are circumstances that show that an earlier periodic IANA Naming Function Review would be beneficial, the proposed updates would allow for that to happen. Further, nothing within the proposed update impacts the ability for the ICANN community to call for a "Special" IANA Naming Function Review, which can be convened "to address any deficiency, problem or other issue that has adversely affected PTI's performance under the IANA Naming Function Contract." (Article 18, Section 18.12(a).)

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The Fundamental Bylaws Amendment to change the cadence of the reviews was recommended by the IFR2, which is comprised of representatives from across the ICANN community, including customers of the IANA Naming Function. The IFR2 sought public comment on its report before submitting it to the Board. After the Board's 25 January 2026 initiation of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process, the proposal was posted for Public Comment from 11 February – 30 March 2026.  Nine comments were received, including from six ICANN community groups (the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Council of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Registries Stakeholder Group and the Root Server System Advisory Committee) and three individuals, and all commenters noted support for the updating of the cadence as proposed. The six ICANN community groups all supported the proposed update without any further changes. One commenter suggested insertion of an outer timeframe on the duration between reviews in the event that an IFR's work gets stalled, though there were no other comments that raised a similar suggestion. The Board notes that issues with an IFR itself might be indicative of other issues surrounding the performance and oversight of the IANA Naming Function, and that there are additional safeguards available other than inserting an untested outer time limit, such as the ability to initiate a Special IFR when needed. Another commenter sought confirmation that all of the community's ability to initiate a Special IFR remained intact, which it does.

The ccNSO and the CSC each noted that the ICANN should pay attention to future scheduling of Periodic IFRs and coordinate with the community so that there is not overlap with the CSC Effectiveness Reviews.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the IFR2's Final Report, the proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendment and the Public Comment Summary and Analysis.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Approving these Fundamental Bylaws Amendments will bring a positive community impact as it is directly responsive to the recommendations arising out Bylaws-mandated review team. In addition, the ICANN community's inputs during public comment show support for the changes.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in approving the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process as this will now proceed to the Empowered Community for consideration. If approved by the Empowered Community, the updated cadence will create a more predictable timeframe that allows adequate time for the community to perform its review and for ICANN to consider and implement the recommendations arising out of that review before a new one is started. Acting on recommendations from the IANA Naming Function Reviews supports ICANN in meeting its strategic goal 3.3 to "Deliver and Enhance the IANA Functions to Meet Evolving Community Needs". The Board notes the ccNSO and CSC's caution on maintaining vigilance that future Periodic IFRs do not overlap with other scheduled IANA-related community reviews.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The approval of this Fundamental Bylaws Amendment supports and advances the public interest in being responsive to community recommendation. This also supports ICANN's delivery of its key technical mission.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

Public Comment was received as required.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.12 – 2026.05.03.13

What is the proposal being considered?

The approval of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 17 and the posting of the proposed amendments to the Customer Standing Committee Charter are the next steps in completing the Board's role in supporting the implementation of the recommendations of the Second CSC Effectiveness Review. The CSC plays a key role in operational oversight of the IANA naming functions and ensuring continued satisfactory performance of the naming functions for its direct customers.

Developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition, the role of the CSC is defined at Article 17 of the ICANN Bylaws, and is supplemented by a Board-approved Charter. The Second CSC Effectiveness Review identified two areas of recommendations which required ICANN Board involvement. First, the Review identified a need to allow the groups appointing members and liaisons to the CSC to identify alternates. This change requires amending the ICANN Bylaws provisions on composition and voting, as well as updating to the CSC Charter to provide clarity on the roles of and rights of alternates. In addition, the Review identified that future CSC Effectiveness Reviews do not need occur on the two-year cycle that was initially defined in 2016, and recommend a more sustainable cadence of every five years for this review. To effectuate this change, the ICANN Bylaws must be updated. All parts of Bylaws Article 17 on the CSC are designated as Fundamental Bylaws under the ICANN Bylaws.

On 25 January 2026, the ICANN Board initiated the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process regarding changes to Article 17 and directed ICANN staff to post proposed amendments to the CSC Charter for public comment. All proposed changes to both the Bylaws and the CSC Charter were developed in coordination with the two groups of direct customers of the naming function, including representatives of the ccNSO and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group.

As discussed below, there was significant support for all proposed Bylaws and Charter amendments. The Board notes that the CSC Charter amendments, which focus heavily on the role and function of alternates, are only applicable if the CSC-related Bylaws Amendments are approved through the Empowered Community. As a result, the Board notes that if the Empowered Community does not support the Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 17, the updated CSC Charter shall not go into effect.

The Board notes that the public comment on these items was integrated with the public comment on the proposed updates to Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws regarding the cadence for the IANA Naming Function Reviews (IFRs). As the CSC and the IFRs are both tools related to the community oversight of the performance of the IANA naming functions, and each Bylaws change is addressing the periodicity of reviews, ICANN will continue to coordinate these items for Empowered Community consideration to streamline this effort.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments and Charter updates are outputs of the CSC's Effectiveness Review, which required validation through the CSC processes including the direct customers of the IANA naming function. In addition, the ccNSO and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group were consulted directly to vet the proposed updates prior to presentation to the Board. After the Board's 25 January 2026 action, the items were posted for Public Comment from 11 February – 30 March 2026.

Nine comments were received, and seven of the commenters fully supported the updating of the cadence of the CSC Effectiveness Review, including the ALAC, ccNSO, CSC, the RrSG, the RySG and the RSSAC, as well as one individual commenter. Two other individual commenters proposed other enhancements to how CSC performance is considered, such as through annual self-assessment reports to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, or through a mid-cycle audit of the CSC's functioning. Each of these commenters rooted their concerns in the fact that five years between effectiveness reviews might give rise to performance issues. The RrSG noted that the five-year cadence is an outer time limit and if there were performance issues, a review could convene sooner.

On the use of alternates, the eight of the commenters noted support for the Bylaws and Charter amendments. One of the supportive commenters suggested that there should be defined conditions for when an alternate assumes full member functions. A commenter opposed to the use of alternates noted that the use of alternates creates "second class" participants without attendance rules but also without term limits, such that they could be present among the CSC for a long period of time and exert authority.

The CSC and the ccNSO each urged ICANN to to "take adequate measures to mitigate overlapping scheduling" of future IANA Naming Function Reviews and CSC Effectiveness Reviews and to coordinate scheduling among the ccNSO and RySG as the entities responsible for the CSC Effectiveness Review.

The Board notes that the comments were substantially supportive of all proposed changes, and that none of the comments raised an issue that resulted in a change to any of the documents as posed for public comment. The issues flagged warrant continued attention, and the Board notes its expectation that the next CSC Effectiveness Review consider whether the five-year cadence remains appropriate and whether there are issues that suggest that interim reporting or audits might be appropriate, as commenters raised. Future CSC Effectiveness Reviews can also consider whether additional refinements are needed to the roles of alternates, after seeing how their presence impacted the operation of the CSC.

The Board also agrees with the issue raised by the CSC and ccNSO regarding attention to the timing of future review cycles, and supports that ICANN staff, when coordinating for the initiation of either IANA Naming Function Reviews or CSC Effectiveness Reviews, should avoid overlapping reviews if possible.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the Second CSC Effectiveness Review Final Report, the proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendment and the proposed CSC Charter Amendment., and the Summary Report of Public Comment.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Approving the Bylaws for the CSC and the related CSC Charter amendment consideration are directly responsive to the recommendations arising out of a Bylaws-mandated community effectiveness review. The community identified these changes to support streamlining efforts and ways to work more effectively.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are impacts on ICANN and the community in approving the Fundamental Bylaws Amendments, which include required community processes that must be observed. In coordinating future action with the Bylaws Amendment process initiated by the Board on the IANA Naming Functions Review, ICANN seeks to mitigate the impact of duplicative processes. If these amendments are all taken on, reducing the mandated frequency of the CSC Effectiveness Review is expected to reduce the community's resources in conducting the reviews that the community has identified as too frequent. In addition, having alternates pre-identified reduces the immediate burden currently placed on selecting entities to identify replacements for a group as small as the CSC. Acting on recommendations from the CSC Effectiveness Review also supports ICANN in meeting its strategic goal 3.3 to "Deliver and Enhance the IANA Functions to Meet Evolving Community Needs".

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

This action advances the public interest in being responsive to community recommendations. This also supports ICANN's delivery of its key technical mission.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

Public comment was required and received on this item.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.14 - 2026.05.03.15

For two decades, the IGF has been a vital platform for fostering open and inclusive discussions on Internet governance, as envisioned in the WSIS Tunis Agenda. During this time, ICANN has been engaged in and benefited from the IGF, enabling awareness of the Internet's unique identifier systems and how the Internet works, as well as matters important to ICANN's mission and mandate.

A one-time, US$1,000,000 contribution would help provide multi-year financial stability for the IGF, allowing the forum to plan its activities strategically rather than operating on short-term funding. This contribution would allow the IGF to plan for improvements, such as resource stability for the IGF Secretariat to help make the IGF more impactful with increased inclusive participation, and to execute the decisions from the WSIS+20 Review outcome document. A significant contribution will support the IGF in advancing its longer-term initiatives and improvements such as:

• Strategic program development;
• Expanding participation from underserved regions;
• Improving institutional governance; and
• Investing in research, outputs, or infrastructure improvements.

This contribution would be significant for the IGF in that it would enable it to scale participation and engagement, keep events registration free, improve policy dialogue outputs and best practices, strengthen the IGF secretariat and operational support, and invest in long-term initiatives, rather than ad-hoc activities.

Through the IGF, ICANN establishes and strengthens partnerships that contribute to its mission. The IGF brings in stakeholders from the entire Internet ecosystem, including those outside of ICANN's existing processes. At the IGF, these stakeholders are exposed to ICANN and its remit, enabling new relationships and understanding of what ICANN does.

This contribution will come at a critical moment. In the recent WSIS+20 Review, Member States decided to make the IGF a permanent forum of the U.N. This shift only partly ensures long-term stability for the IGF. While the WSIS+20 Review Outcome Document committed to strengthening the IGF Secretariat and ensuring sustainable funding for the IGF from the U.N. regular budget, there is still no funding plan, nor is the U.N. budget contribution expected to be enough to realize the IGF's full potential.

In providing a major contribution, ICANN will demonstrate leadership and commitment to the IGF's mission, credibility, and stability. This can potentially lead more stakeholders and institutions to contribute. Leading up to the WSIS+20 review, there was broad engagement and support from across ICANN's multistakeholder community in support of evolving to a permanent mandate for the IGF. The ICANN community's commitment to enhancing collaborative initiatives to promote and advance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance is embedded in ICANN's Strategic Plan for FY26-30.

As a champion for the multistakeholder model, ICANN's contribution should help to catalyze additional private-sector contributions, particularly before the U.N.'s discussions on sustainable funding and resources. ICANN's contribution could also help to establish a sustainable funding model for the IGF, which is currently lacking.

This one-time, significant contribution will allow the IGF secretariat to move away from the volatile state of repeated fundraising cycles, which currently consumes its time and resources.

ICANN envisions a permanent IGF that will be the primary dialogue platform on Internet governance. This contribution should support an IGF with: (1) inclusive participation by stakeholders who have not yet optimized participation in the IGF; (2) a robust process to develop a relevant agenda; and (3) a mechanism to ensure impactful outcomes. As such, ICANN will ask the Head of the IGF Secretariat to prepare a clear implementation plan, including the following requests:

• Administrative Stability: The IGF Secretariat will be able to support the logistical, administrative, and substantive preparations of the IGF annual meeting and its National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs). This includes the support provided to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), the Leadership Panel, and other mechanisms. This contribution should allow staff stability and continuity for corporate memory and knowledge of U.N. operations and policy, and familiarity with the IGF and its NRIs. ICANN's contribution provides the Secretariat with immediate funds needed to scale its operations, and modernize its technology to facilitate virtual collaboration year-round and not only at the global annual IGF.
• Impactful Global Conversations: The contribution should amplify the IGF's impact by enriching discussions, generating innovative solutions to pressing Internet governance challenges. This would directly support ICANN's strategic priority 1.3.2. to promote and evolve the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, subsequently informing multilateral (U.N.) decision-making processes.
• Capacity Development and Inclusivity: The IGF plays a pivotal role in capacity development, particularly for multistakeholder communities from developing countries. Through NRIs, the IGF has been able to harness initiatives, identify emerging concerns, and facilitate important discussions. This contribution should allow the IGF, including the Secretariat, to further support NRIs, reinforcing bottom-up agenda setting, and expand its efforts in capacity development – further empowering stakeholders from underserved regions to participate meaningfully in global Internet governance.
• Engagement of Developing Country Governments: Participation by many governments, including those from developing and underrepresented regions, is stark in global Internet governance discussions. A well-resourced IGF should identify and implement initiatives to improve its branding, and strengthen its outreach and engagement efforts, supporting the WSIS+20 decisions and ensuring more diverse perspectives inform global discussions.

Financial Overview

The IGF currently operates as a U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) project fully funded by voluntary contributions to the IGF Trust Fund, although the WSIS+20 Outcome Document requested that starting 2027, the IGF Secretariat be funded in accordance with the U.N. budgetary procedures. According to the U.N. Financial Regulations and Rules, activities cannot proceed without full funding. Therefore, early contributions will be critical in the first year after the conclusion of the WSIS+20 review, especially since pledged voluntary contributions may not yet be made. ICANN's timely contribution would support smooth operations and effective preparation for the 2026 IGF, and implementation of improvements. Moreover, ICANN intends to include a condition that the contribution is contingent on a commitment by the U.N. that it will be used exclusively for the IGF Secretariat's operations and that any other use of these funds would require ICANN's consent. ICANN would also request that UNDESA apply the lowest possible overhead rate to the contribution to maximize direct support to the IGF Secretariat. Finally, as the IGF might decide in the future to create advocacy positions, such as the recently announced "Global Advocate for Human-Centric Digital Governance", ICANN requests that none of the funding be used to support these advocacy efforts as they are outside ICANN's mission and remit.

There will be a financial impact to ICANN by providing the contribution that is possible due to the organization's surplus funding, as compared to operational expenses in FY26.

This action will have a positive impact on the security or the stability of the Domain Name System. An improved IGF starting from 2026, with the potential to be further impactful in the next few years, will strengthen the argument for the multistakeholder model, deter government stakeholders who question the effectiveness of multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and allow the Internet to continue to be governed through existing coordination.

Through a substantive contribution to the IGF, ICANN helps sustain the only global forum where all stakeholder groups - governments, technical community, private sector, and civil society - engage on equal footing on different aspects of Internet governance. Strengthening this ecosystem is essential to preserving the multistakeholder model as the foundational governance mechanism underpinning ICANN's work, thereby directly enabling delivery of its mission and advancing the public interest. This also advances Strategic Goal 1.3 in ICANN's Strategic Plan for FY26-30 (Expand Strategic Alliances to Advocate for the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance).

This is an Organization Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.16 – 2026.05.03.18

As part of ICANN's Public Meeting strategy, ICANN seeks to host a meeting in a different geographic region (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) three times a year. ICANN87 is scheduled for 17-22 October 2026.

ICANN initially identified Muscat, Oman as the meeting location for ICANN87. The ongoing events in the Middle East, along with the recent escalation of activity in the region, have led to uncertainty associated with travel and security for the meeting attendees, which could impair ICANN's ability to hold a successful meeting in Muscat, Oman at this time.

Pursuant to the ICANN Delegation of Authority Guidelines, the Board is responsible for "[a]pproving the need to move an ICANN Public Meeting from a previously identified location or need to vary from approved meeting strategy." Further, per the ICANN Contracting and Disbursement policy the Board must approve any expenditures that will exceed US$750,000, as this will.

Staff has performed a thorough worldwide search and analysis of any available alternate locations for ICANN87 that meet the Meeting Location Selection Criteria (see https://meetings.icann.org/en/host). Based on the proposals and analysis, ICANN has identified Bali, Indonesia as the new location for ICANN87. Selection of this Asia Pacific location adheres to the geographic rotation guidelines established by the Meeting Strategy Working Group.

Additionally, the Board will thank the local host for Muscat, Oman, the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) Oman, for all the extensive work and support already performed in furtherance of a meeting in Muscat, and ask the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the TRA to try to identify a mutually acceptable date as soon as practicable to hold an ICANN Public Meeting in Oman. ICANN regrets the need to postpone the meeting a second time due to events outside of the local host's control.

The Board Finance Committee (BFC) has carried out its standard due diligence in reviewing the proposed Board decision to recommend approval to the Board as it relates to approving the amount of expenditures. As part of this diligence, the BFC has reviewed the financial risks associated with the proposed decision and the information provided by staff on the measures in place to mitigate those risks. The BFC has found these financial risks and the mitigation in place reasonable and acceptable.

The Board has reviewed the information and costs related to hosting the meeting in Bali, Indonesia and agrees with the BFC's recommendation that the proposal meets the significant factors of the Meeting Location Selection Criteria, as well as the related costs for the facilities selected, for ICANN87.

ICANN conducts Public Meetings in support of its mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and these meetings are consistent with the public interest as they provide free and open access to anyone wishing to participate, either in person or remotely, in open, transparent, and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes.

There will be a financial impact to ICANN in hosting the meeting and providing travel support as necessary, as well as to the community in incurring costs to travel to the meeting. However, such impact would be faced regardless of the location and venue of the meeting and is accounted for in the Board-approved ICANN FY27 Operating Plan and Budget.

This action will have no impact on the security or the stability of the Domain Name System.

This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.05.03.19 – 2026.05.03.20

In order to support the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook and policy obligations, ICANN has a continued need for third-party professional services to ensure timely incident response, maintain system stability, and support critical business processes. This support is crucial during a period of elevated demand and complexity between the gTLD application window open period on 30 April 2026 through String Confirmation anticipated to occur on 30 October 2026. The expanded support hours will provide greater resilience, reduce risk associated with service disruptions, and ensure that issues are addressed promptly regardless of when they arise. At the conclusion of the six-month period, the expectation is that the support team will reduce and provide support during regular business hours.

Maintaining the current vendor leverages their knowledge and proven delivery approach and avoids additional costs and timeline delays by enabling access to specialist capability, delivery capacity, and technical expertise that cannot be met in-house within the required timelines. The current provider was previously selected via RFP and has maintained a positive working relationship across internal ICANN departments. They also successfully delivered RSP and ASP systems with positive progress on TAMS development despite challenging program constraints.

Accordingly, ICANN staff and the BFC recommended that the ICANN Board authorize the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, contract extensions [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information], for an enhanced on-call support model needed for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round.

This decision is in the furtherance of ICANN's mission and the support of public interest to support the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system (DNS) by ensuring that there are adequate on-call support hours outside of regular business hours.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY26 budget and will be for future budgets as well.

As noted above, this action is intended to have a positive impact on security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.