Minutes | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 7 September 2024

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.01

The SSAC is a diverse group of individuals whose expertise in specific subject matters enables the SSAC to fulfill its role and execute its mission. Since its inception, the SSAC has invited to its membership individuals with deep knowledge and experience in technical and security areas that are critical to the security and stability of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems.

The SSAC's continued operation as a competent body is dependent on the accumulation of talented subject matter experts who have consented to volunteer their time and energies to the execution of the SSAC mission.

Richard Wilhelm has over 30 years experience with Internet technologies across a number of roles. He has been involved with ICANN for several years, reaching back to his Neustar work in the early 2000s. He has gained both registry and registrar experience, having worked at Verisign and Network Solutions as well as his current role as the Chief Technology Officer at the Public Interest Registry (PIR). Rick also has been involved in policy development work at ICANN and at other Internet fora (such as OARC and the IETF); some examples of his ICANN participation include Vice-Chair of the Customer Standing Committee and IANA Function Review 2. In addition, Rick was also a member of the SSAC from March 2009 to December 2012, during which time he contributed to SSAC documents such as SAC044, SAC047 and SAC049.

Vasyl ("Billy") Bratchenko has over a decade of experience at Namecheap, which has included years of work heading up customer support. His roles have required him to debug and troubleshoot a variety of technical issues (including DNS misconfiguration) and to assist users in improving their website security. In addition, Vasyl has been responsible for anti-abuse and risk management efforts at Namecheap since 2021, handling analysis of security issues and coordinating with law enforcement; these efforts have also given Vasyl some experience with machine learning tools.

Jothan Frakes has over 30 years of experience in the domain name industry, and is currently the Vice-Chair, Technical Operations of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. He has considerable experience in the registrar space, with a variety of advisory and leadership roles at gTLDs and ccTLDs, for such organizations as PLISK, Sedari, Nominet, and CoCCA. Jothan is also the Chief Public Suffix List Maintainer with the Mozilla Project and was an invited guest participant for SAC070.

Laurin Weissinger has been involved with ICANN since 2016 and has contributed his knowledge in such areas as anti-abuse as well as serving as the vice-chair of SSR2. He spends time in both academia and industry: he is a Senior Security Consultant for Fresenius, as well as a part-time Lecturer and Researcher at Tufts University. His scholarship focuses on socio-technological aspects of the Internet, including cybersecurity policy and risk management. Laurin serves as an Expert Advisor to M3AAWG and as Chair of the M3AAWG Academic and Research Committee, as well as a Research Fellow and Program Chair for eCrime at APWG.

Chaoyi Lu is a postdoctoral researcher at Tsinghua University who specializes in network security and measurement, with a focus on DNS. He has published a number of peer-reviewed papers on these topics at major conferences (such as NDSS and Usenix Security) and is an experienced technical writer and communicator. Chaoyi has presented talks and organized training at several events, such as the ICANN APAC DNS Forum.

Layal Jebran has worked in the cybersecurity field as a consultant and product manager at a number of companies. She currently works for Front Line Defenders, leading cybersecurity and technical program management. Among other roles, Layal has managed projects for a global supply chain company (Opply) and mobile apps (Appex), and co-founded an e-learning platform (Moubarmij) for teaching programming and security skills. Layal also worked as the Regional Engagement Manager (MENA Region) for the Internet Society from 2018-2019 (after volunteering at the Internet Society Lebanon Chapter), and she was an ICANN61 Fellow.

This resolution is an organizational administrative function for which no public comment is required. The appointment of SSAC members is in the public interest and in furtherance of ICANN's mission as it contributes to the commitment of the ICANN to strengthen the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS. The appointment of SSAC members is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on ICANN org that has not already been accounted for in the budgeted resources necessary for ongoing support of the SSAC.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.02

A key goal of the renewal of the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) between ICANN and Verisign, Inc. for the performance of the maintainer function is to provide secure and stable operations of the root zone. The RZMA renewal would ensure that expectations of IANA customers will continue to be met and ensure continuity, security and stability of the operation of the root zone.

The RZMA was first entered between ICANN and Verisign in 2016 as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition. The renewal clause of the RZMA states: "This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of eight (8) years (the "Initial Term") and shall automatically renew for successive eight (8) years periods (each a "Renewal Term") unless or until earlier terminated pursuant to the terms and conditions in this Agreement."

The current RZMA expires on 27 September 2024. In advance of the end of the first eight-year term of the RZMA, ICANN identified that some evolution of the RZMA was preferred, and engaged in negotiations with Verisign to enhance the requirements within the RZMA.

Accordingly, ICANN is now seeking to renew the RZMA with Verisign, subject to the proposed revisions as mutually agreed, for a further period of eight (8) years for a total amount not to exceed US$2.4 million.

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN utilizes available funding in the most effective and efficient manner so as to be in the best interests of ICANN and the global Internet community, and maintains stable and predictable service for the key root zone maintainer function that has been performed as expected under the first term of the RZMA.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY25 budget and will be for the future budgets as well. Further, this decision is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.03

Article 7, Section 7.2 and Article 14 of the ICANN Bylaws call for, among other things, the Board to appoint Board Committee leadership and membership, including filling any vacancies which may occur in these positions during the year. The most recent Chair of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) resigned from the Board, effective 23 August 2023. Given the vacancy in OEC leadership, the Board asked the Board Governance Committee (BGC) to help identify a replacement for OEC Chair. The BGC has identified and recommended that Alan Barrett, a current member of the OEC, be named as OEC Chair. The Board agrees.

The appointment of Board Committee leadership is consistent with ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that Board Committees have the properly skilled expertise in both membership and leadership to carry forth ICANN's Mission, Commitments and Core Values.

This decision will have no direct fiscal impact on the organization and no 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 2024.09.07.04 – 2024.09.07.05

This resolution fulfills ICANN's responsibility, as the sole member of PTI, to elect Directors to the PTI Board, which allows the PTI Board to continue its work.

The election of a PTI Board director is taken fully in line with the obligations as set forth in the PTI Bylaws.

This action confirms ICANN's continued commitment to its Bylaws' obligations surrounding the performance of the IANA Functions that are contracted to PTI. This also directly serves ICANN's mission to ensure the stable and secure operations of the Internet's unique identifiers, and serves the public interest in the continued stable performance of the IANA functions.

Today's action is not anticipated to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though PTI is essential to ICANN's security, stability and resiliency work. There are resource implications in supporting PTI, which are reflected in the PTI, IANA and ICANN Budgets.

The appointment to the PTI Board is an Organizational Administrative Functions for which public comments were not necessary.

All members of the Board voted in favor of Resolutions 2024.09.07.01, 2024.09.07.02, 2024.09.07.03, and 2024.09.07.04 – 2024.09.07.05. The Resolutions carried.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.06 – 2024.09.07.08

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

On 22 December 2023, the GNSO Council voted with a GNSO Supermajority to approve all fifty-eight (58) recommendations outlined in the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report. Following this, on 18 January 2024, the GNSO Council submitted its Recommendations Report, as mandated by the Bylaws, to the ICANN Board of Directors. The report recommended the adoption of all final recommendations by the ICANN Board. In accordance with Annex A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws, the EPDP-IDNs recommendations have been forwarded to the Board for its review and action.

As required by Article 3, Section 6.(a)(iii) of the ICANN Bylaws, the approved recommendations were posted for Public Comment to inform Board action on the final recommendations. Additionally, according to Section 11.3(i)(x) of the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Council's support for these recommendations, surpassing the Supermajority threshold, obligates the Board to adopt the recommendations unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds, the Board determines that the policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

The Board acknowledges the GNSO Council resolution referencing "sixty-nine (69) Full Consensus recommendations." However, it should be noted that 58 of these Outputs are Consensus Policy recommendations, while the remaining 11 are categorized as Implementation Guidance.

On 8 June 2024, the Board adopted a scorecard adopting 52 of the Consensus Policy recommendations, and designating 6 recommendations from the IDN Final Report as pending due to interdependencies with the ongoing consideration of the fee structure for the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

What is the proposal being considered?

In May 2021, the GNSO Council initiated an EPDP on IDNs to:

1. Determine the approach for a consistent definition of all gTLDs; and
2. Develop policy recommendations that will eventually allow for the introduction of variant gTLDs at the top-level.

In November 2022, the Council approved an EPDP Team request to divide its work into two phases, with Phase 1 covering topics related to top-level gTLD definition and variant management, and Phase 2 covering topics related to second-level variant management issues.

The EPDP Team published its Phase 1 Initial Report for Public Comment in April 2023. Following its review of all the public comments received, the EPDP Team finalized its recommendations and submitted its Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council in November 2023. The Council approved the Final Report, including all fifty-eight (58) Consensus Policy recommendations.

Having taken action to adopt the majority of the recommendations from the Final Report, the Board is now considering the fee-related recommendations that include:

Recommendation #	Recommendation Text
3.11	A future applicant applying for a primary gTLD string and up to four (4) of that string's allocatable variant labels during an application round must incur the same base application fee as any other gTLD applicant who does not apply for variant labels in that round.
3.12	Any applicant applying for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of a primary gTLD string in an application round may incur additional fees that ICANN org considers to be proportionate to any additional costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle.
3.13	A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee. ICANN org will decide on the discount based on what it considers to be proportionate to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle.
3.14	If a registry operator from the 2012 round applies for up to four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD: 3.14.1 in the immediate next application round, the base application fee will be waived for that application as a one-time exception; or 3.14.2 in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as set out in Final Recommendation 3.13. If a registry operator from the 2012 round applies for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD: 3.14.3 in the immediate next application round, that application may incur additional fees as set out in Final Recommendation 3.12; or 3.14.4 in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as set out in Final Recommendation 3.13 AND may incur additional fees as set out in Final Recommendation 3.12.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

In accordance with the GNSO's PDP Manual, in August 2021, the EPDP-IDNs Team reached out to all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees as well as all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies with requests for input at the start of its deliberations. In response, statements were received from the: Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) (specifically its ccPDP4 Variant Management Subgroup). The input received was incorporated into the EPDP Team's deliberations as each topic was discussed. Where groups that provided written input also had representative members on the EPDP Team, those members were well-positioned to respond to questions from other members requesting clarity about the written input during the Team's consideration of the topic.

While the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) did not appoint members to the EPDP Team, its subject matter experts on IDNs met with the EPDP Team during two engagement sessions to discuss their views on specific charter questions and preliminary recommendations. Some of the SSAC inputs were recorded in SAC120, which was published in April 2022. In addition, the EPDP Team conducted an outreach webinar for the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in February 2023, briefing the GAC on issues regarding variants and explaining the significance of the EPDP Team's work.

Community input was also sought through Public Comment on the EPDP Team's Phase 1 Initial Report from 24 April to 19 June 2023.

In May 2023, the EPDP Team held a community webinar to raise awareness of its Phase 1 Initial Report and encourage community input. By the Public Comment closure date, the EPDP Team received input from twelve (12) submissions. Following a thorough review of the submissions, the EPDP Team finalized its recommendations and implementation guidance. The EPDP Team delivered its Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council on 08 November 2023.

Following the GNSO Council's approval, the ICANN Board sought the community's input on the Phase 1 Final Recommendations of the EPDP on IDNs. A period of Public Comment on the Final Report was opened from 23 January to 12 March 2024, and input was received from the community and other interested parties on the Final Report.

On 10 June 2024, ICANN org discussed the gTLD evaluation fee for the New gTLD Program: Next Round with the SubPro IRT, making note of the potential approach for variant TLD applications as recommended by the IDN EPDP Phase 1 Final Report. IRT members did not express any substantive concerns with the approach proposed by the org.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The EPDP-IDNs Team thoroughly reviewed the Public Comment submissions concerning the Phase 1 Initial Report and incorporated numerous suggestions, where necessary, to the final recommendations.

What significant materials did the Board review?

To help facilitate the Board's determination of whether the Outputs are in the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN, the Board considered the following materials to be significant:

• The 31 January 2012 SAC052 Report: SSAC Advisory on Delegation of Single-Character Internationalized Domain Name Top-Level Domains.
• The 23 July 2013 SAC060 Report: SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report.
• The 25 January 2019 IDN Variant TLD Management paper developed by ICANN org.
• The 7 October 2019 Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR).
• IDN-related Outputs under Topic 25 in the SubPro PDP Final Report published 2 February 2021.
• The 24 April 2023 Phase 1 Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
• The 8 November 2023 Phase 1 Final Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
• The 21 December 2023 GNSO Council resolution of the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report recommendations.
• The 18 January 2024 GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board Regarding Adoption of the Phase 1 Final Recommendations from the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)
• The 10 June 2024 Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team (SubPro IRT) Session during ICANN80. See recording and materials presented.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Adopting these recommendations will positively impact ICANN as upholding the pivotal role of IDNs in enabling global access to domain names in native languages and scripts. These recommendations allow for implementing variant TLDs effectively, making IDNs more usable across communities. More generally, IDNs not only foster a more linguistically diverse Internet but also facilitate broader engagement for organizations, governments, and businesses with audiences in their preferred language or script. The secure and stable use of IDNs is essential for enhancing digital inclusivity and is a priority for ICANN.

Additionally, in its March 2019 rationale, the Board requested the GNSO and ccNSO to coordinate their respective areas of IDN policy work to help ensure a consistent solution based on the variant TLD Recommendations for IDN variant ccTLDs and IDN variant gTLDs. The Board anticipates that the success of this coordinated effort will also generate significant benefits for the global community, and reinforces the importance of collaboration and the critical role of the multistakeholder model.

The Board discussed the estimates and assumptions on volume for IDN variant TLD applications and the proposed implementation of the fee-related recommendations, consistent with the principles of cost recovery and risk mitigation. Adopting these recommendations also allows for clarity and comprehensive information on relevant fees to be provided to potential applicants well in advance of the application submission period.

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

In developing the Phase 1 Final Report outputs, the EPDP Team recognized that the cost recovery principle as published in the SubPro PDP Working Group's Affirmation with Modification 15.4, applies to the overall New gTLD Program, and the costs of running the program would be borne by all applicants collectively. As noted in the EPDP Team's Final Recommendation 3.10: "The fee structure associated with future applications that include variant label(s), and variant label applications from registry operators of existing gTLDs, must be consistent with the principle of cost recovery reflected in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and affirmed by the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP." The New gTLD Program: Next Round evaluation fee will incorporate the costs associated with variant label(s) and variant label applications.

The Board notes that the EPDP-IDNs team considered the fiscal impact on the community in developing its fee-related recommendations as can be seen in Final Recommendations noted in Charter Question D1b of the Phase 1 Final Report. In drafting the fee-related recommendations, the EPDP-IDNs team examined the processes for existing registry operators to apply for or be allocated variants of their current gTLDs, as well as for new IDN gTLD applicants to seek and obtain allocatable variants. It also assessed the associated fees, including application and annual registration fees for variant TLDs, and explored whether specific implementation guidance should be provided.

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

In December 2010, the Board directed ICANN "to develop an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of IDN variant TLDs." As a result, ICANN drafted an Integrated Issues Report in February 2012 which defined milestones that must be completed to manage the implementation of IDN variant TLDs. Since then, ICANN developed a set of recommendations and supporting documentation on mechanisms for implementing IDN variant TLDs and published an IDN Variant TLD Management paper in January 2019. The documents were finalized after a standard public comment period and were approved by the Board in March 2019 who requested that the GNSO and ccNSO consider them while developing their respective policies to define and manage variant TLDs for the current TLDs and future TLD applications.

In drafting its charter and conducting its work, the EPDP-IDNs Team thoroughly considered ICANN org's previous reports and recommendations. In its work, the EPDP Team reinforced the "conservatism principle," which advocates for the adoption of a more cautious approach as a way to limit any potential security and stability risks associated with the variant label delegation in the absence of data or information in support of a more liberal approach.

As noted above, in preparation for the Board's consideration of the IDN EPDP Team's Phase 1 Final Report, ICANN org, in collaboration with the community and various stakeholders, has been conducting research and preparing extensively to ensure that variant TLDs can be added in a secure and stable way considering the IDN variant TLD Recommendations.

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

This action is within ICANN's mission and mandate and in the public interest as set forth in the ICANN Bylaws. The multistakeholder policy development process of bottom-up, consensus policies and guidelines helps advance the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Enabling the secure and stable use of IDNs will empower citizens, businesses, and communities to fully benefit from the Internet, enhancing accessibility and fostering greater participation in the digital world.

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?

As required by the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO's policy procedures, the recommendations were the subject of Public Comment as discussed above, and the Final Report was developed in collaboration with the ICANN community, in accordance with the GNSO PDP Manual.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.09

Article 12, Section 12.2(a)(ix) of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." In its ICANN80 Kigali Communiqué (17 June 2024), the GAC issued advice to the Board regarding the Applicant Support Program and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets in New gTLDs. The GAC also provided a follow-up to previous advice regarding the Applicant Support Program and Urgent Requests for Disclosure of Registration Data. Article 12, Section 12.2(a)(x) of the ICANN Bylaws states that the "advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Governmental Advisory Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Any Governmental Advisory Committee advice approved by a full Governmental Advisory Committee consensus, understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection ("GAC Consensus Advice"), may only be rejected by a vote of no less than 60% of the Board, and the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Governmental Advisory Committee will state whether any advice it gives to the Board is GAC Consensus Advice."

The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of policies. The Board is taking action today on the GAC Consensus Advice to the ICANN Board in the ICANN80 Kigali Communiqué, including the Consensus Advice items related to the Applicant Support Program and GAC follow-up to previous advice items on the Applicant Support Program and Urgent Requests for Disclosure of Registration Data as described in the scorecard dated 07 September 2024. This decision is in the public interest and within ICANN's mission, as it is consistent with ICANN's bylaws for considering and acting on advice issued by the GAC.

In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the ICANN80 Kigali Communiqué, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

• ICANN80 Kigali Communiqué (17 June 2024): https://gac.icann.org/advice/communiques/ICANN80%20GAC%20Communique-zh.pdf
• GAC Response to ICANN80 Kigali GAC Communiqué and Initial Feedback for Consideration (08 July 2024): https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-response-to-icann80-kigali-gac-communique-and-initial-feedback-for-consideration
• The GNSO Council's review of the advice in the ICANN80 Kigali Communiqué as presented in the 12 July 2024 letter to the Board: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibiase-to-sinha-12jul24-en.pdf
• The ICANN Board's July ICANN80 Advice Scorecard (29 July 2024): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-gac-advice-kigali-communique-board-action-29jul24-en.pdf

The adoption of the GAC scorecard will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the advice from the GAC concerning gTLDs and other matters. There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.09.07.10 – 2024.09.07.12

Why is the Board addressing this issue?

How to mitigate name collision issues in the domain name system has been a long-standing question. During the 2012 round of new gTLDs, the SSAC published SAC057 that noted the issue of name collision. Following a study commissioned by the ICANN Board and public input, the Board adopted the New gTLD Name Collision Occurrence Management Plan and Framework, which identified specific strings (.CORP, .HOME and .MAIL) as high-risk strings where delegation into the root zone should be deferred indefinitely. Consequently, the Board decided against proceeding with the applications for these strings for the duration of the 2012 round and directed the ICANN organization to provide a full refund of the application fee upon withdrawal of the applications for these strings. The Board also requested that the SSAC conduct a study to present data, analysis and points of view and provide advice to the Board on a range of questions relating to name collisions.

In March 2021, the Board directed the SSAC-chartered Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Discussion Group to proceed with a redesigned Study 2. The Discussion Group completed its work in April 2024 and the SSAC issued a related advisory as SAC124 in May 2024.

Completion of the NCAP work is a dependency for implementation of the New gTLD Program: Next Round, including finalization of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook. There will also be resource investments and complexities involved to implement the SAC124 advice and NCAP Study 2 recommendations.

This resolution reflects the Board's consideration of the SSAC's advice and the NCAP Study 2 Final Report recommendations. The Board's action provides clarity on the SSAC advice and NCAP recommendations and helps mitigate negative impacts on the New gTLD Program: Next Round implementation timeline, including completion of the Next Round Applicant Guidebook. The Board's decision addresses considerations for the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS during the New gTLD Program: Next Round and the delegation of potential new gTLDs.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposal is to develop and implement a Name Collision Risk Management system that will replace the existing Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework. Most significantly, under the proposed system, ICANN org will temporarily delegate applied-for strings in the DNS as part of a risk assessment and management process that would take place as part of the application evaluation process. The framework will also allow applicants for strings categorized as "high risk" to submit risk mitigation plans for expert review and proceed to contracting and delegation upon approval of such plans.

The Board's action does not include approving Recommendation 4.1 from the NCAP Study 2 Final Report. Recommendation 4.1 states that "ICANN should submit .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL through the Name Collision Risk Assessment Process."

The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report includes Implementation Guidance 3.4, which states: "If all applications for a given string have a status of "Not Approved", an application for the TLD string will only be allowed if …. [T]he ICANN Board has not approved new policies or procedures that would allow one or more of the applicants from the prior round to cure the reasons for which it was placed in the "Not Approved" category but has approved new policies or procedures that would allow an applicant to apply for the string in any subsequent round. In the event that there are new policies or procedures put into place which would allow applications for strings which were "Not Approved" in a prior round, the ICANN Board must make a determination as to whether the applicants in the prior round have any preferential rights for those strings if such prior applicants commit to adopt such new policies or procedures at the time such policies or procedures are put into place."

In 2018, the ICANN Board explicitly chose not to grant priority in any future rounds of new gTLDs to those applicants who had applied for .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL in the 2012 round. Instead, the Board resolved that these applications should not proceed and that the affected applicants would be fully refunded their 2012 New gTLD Program application fee upon withdrawal of their applications. Several applicants withdrew their applications and received refunds following the Board's decision.

By rejecting Recommendation 4.1 from the NCAP Study 2 Final Report, the Board reaffirms its previous decision that the applications from the 2012 round for .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL should not proceed. The Board confirms that any application for .CORP, .HOME, or .MAIL in the upcoming and future rounds of new gTLDs will be treated in the same way as all other applications and subject to the same process. In line with today's decision, ICANN org will continue to make available refunds to any remaining applicants for .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL whose applications were not approved but have not yet been withdrawn, consistent with the Board's decision in 2018.

According to Implementation Guidance 3.4 of the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, if new policies or procedures are adopted that allow applicants to cure previous 'Not Approved' statuses, the ICANN Board must decide whether these prior applicants have preferential rights for the next round. In light of today's decision to accept SSAC advice in SAC124 and approval all the recommendations in the NCAP Study 2 Final Report, with the sole exception of Recommendation 4.1, and based on its 2018 Resolution (2018.02.04.12) and fairness concerns for those who withdrew their applications, the Board confirms that no priority will be granted to 2012 applicants for .CORP, .MAIL, and .HOME in future rounds.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The draft report was subject to a Public Comment proceeding which resulted in input from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), Business Constituency (BC), as well as individuals and companies from within the community. ICANN org also submitted input specifically addressing the data protection issues that may arise from the use of the Visible Interruption (VI) and Visible Interruption and Notification (VIN) assessment methods.

A summary of the submissions to the proceeding may be found at the following URL: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/name-collision/draft-ncap-study-2-report-responses-questions-regarding-name-collisions-13-03-2024-en.pdf (PDF)

The most common concern raised by respondents was the timing and placement of the name collision risk assessment in the application evaluation process. Other concerns included data protection and privacy issues, consideration of ".brand" TLDs, and the potential to game the system due to its reliance on datasets that could be manipulated. The ICANN organization developed a proposed implementation plan that takes on board the major concerns raised by the community in the context of the NCAP Study 2 Final Report and SAC124.

What other factors did the Board consider?

The Board considered the legal, financial, and technical feasibility of implementing the SSAC advice and NCAP Study 2 recommendations, along with the possible impacts these recommendations may have on the timing, budget, and application fee for the New gTLD Program: Next Round. The Board understands that there may be data privacy concerns regarding the assessment of data throughout the Name Collision Assessment Process, which the ICANN organization intends to address through conducting legal triages, including privacy impact assessments, to ensure compliance with applicable data privacy law and regulations.

What significant materials did the Board review?

In determining appropriate action on SAC124 and the NCAP Study 2 recommendations, the Board reviewed the following non-exhaustive list of materials and documents:

• The Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (01 February 2021)
• Submissions for the Public Comment proceeding for the NCAP Study 2 Final Report (13 March 2024)
• Name Collision Analysis Project Study Two Report (05 April 2024)
• SSAC Advice on Name Collision Analysis (SAC124) (01 May 2024)
• The ICANN organization's proposed implementation plan (28 August 2024)
• The ICANN organization's Data Privacy Impact Assessments on the NCAP Study 2 recommendations (22 August 2024)

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

It is anticipated that implementation of these recommendations will have a positive impact, by establishing a framework to mitigate the name collision risks associated with establishment of new generic top-level domains.

The Board's action and implementation by the ICANN organization will resolve one of the dependencies for the New gTLD Program: Next Round and clarify the status of the remaining applications for high-risk strings from the 2012 round.

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

The recommendations will result in a fiscal impact both to ICANN org and applicants in the New gTLD Program: Next Round. The impact on the Next Round implementation budget is estimated to be $0.5M as $0.3M of activities were already accounted for in the implementation budget. The amount of the processing budget is estimated at $6.9M. These will result in an additional cost per application string of $5K.

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

The risk assessment framework outlined in the NCAP Study 2 recommendations constitutes a formal process for managing the security, stability and resilience risks associated with name collisions occurring as a result of the establishment of new generic top-level domains. As the report emphasizes, these risks cannot be eliminated entirely, but can be minimized by implementing an appropriate risk management framework.

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

ICANN's mission is to help secure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. The recommendations in the NCAP Study 2 Final Report constitute a risk management framework designed to address the security, stability and resilience risks associated with expansion of the DNS namespace. Therefore, this decision is in the public interest and within ICANN's 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?

None.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.13

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The ICANN Board is authorizing the commitment of up to US$5 million dollars from the 2012 New gTLD Program Auction Proceeds to be used to fund up to half of the direct costs for supported gTLD applicants participating in the Next Round. This funding contributes to the expanded scope of support and the gTLD evaluation fee discounts to qualified supported gTLD applicants.

ICANN org has progressed on the implementation design of the ASP and has communicated in regular updates shared with the Board and community. As ICANN org confirms it will be operationally ready to receive applications for the ASP by the end of 2024. 

What is the proposal being considered?

The Board is taking action to allocate up to US$5 million from the 2012 New gTLD Program Auction Proceeds for funding up to half of the direct costs for supported gTLD applicants participating in the Next Round.

The proposed action is in furtherance of Board resolutions 2023.03.16.04 – 2023.03.16.08 to implement an Applicant Support Program that is aligned with the community policy recommendations in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The community was extensively involved in the development of the Applicant Support Program via the Generic Names Supporting Organization policy development process and the resulting SubPro Final Report. Throughout the implementation phase of the Applicant Support Program, ICANN org has provided regular updates to the ICANN Board and community on the progress of implementation.

Stakeholder updates have been posted on the Implementation Review Team website and the engagement sessions conducted with the Implementation Review Team ASP sub-track have provided opportunities for updates to be delivered, and community input to be collected, throughout the program implementation design. The key elements of the Applicant Support Program were shared with all stakeholders during various ICANN sessions and in meetings with the ASP Implementation Review Team sub-track. In addition, the draft ASP Handbook was published for public comment on 15 April 2024.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board Chair published a blog requesting community input on the potential use of auction proceeds for the Applicant Support Program. Community feedback from ALAC, Public Interest Registry (PIR), Business Constituency (BC), and the GNSO Council indicates support for using up to US$5 million from auction proceeds to fund up to half of the direct costs for supported gTLD applicants participating in the Next Round.

The Board considered other materials and documents, including the draft ASP Handbook. The Board also reviewed ICANN org's representation that it is preparing to be operationally ready by end of 2024, to deliver the Applicant Support Program in line with the processes set forth within the ASP Handbook.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

There are no direct positive or negative community impacts as a result of this Board resolution. Community stakeholder groups may have diverse views on the use of auction proceeds for the Applicant Support Program, some positive, some negative. The decision to allocate up to US$5 million from auction proceeds would reduce the amount of funds needed from cost-recovery, via the gTLD application fee, to support the ASP.

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

This is a commitment to distribute a portion of the 2012 New gTLD Program Auction Proceeds, which have been segregated for use with the ICANN community's direction. The allocation of up to US$5 million to the Applicant Support Program will help to further the accessibility of and competition for new gTLDs.  In addition, utilizing the 2012 New gTLD Auction Proceeds to subsidize the ASP program, lessens the impact of cost-recovery fees to the fully paying new gTLD applicants.

The use of up to US$5 million for the ASP does not hinder or deter from ICANN org's mission and current work on the Grant Program and expected grant distributions
The distribution of this funding is an exceptional opportunity to make a difference in the Internet ecosystem, in furtherance of ICANN's mission.

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

This action does not have a direct impact on the security, stability, or resiliency of the Internet's DNS. It is possible that some supported gTLD applicants that become Registry Operators may have an impact on the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet's DNS.

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

This decision supports ICANN's mission as it is implementing policies–to create an Applicant Support Program for the new gTLD Program–developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process. The Applicant Support Program furthers the public interest by making progress towards gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report Affirmation 1.3: "...that the primary purposes of new gTLDs are to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS."

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?

There is no defined policy process guiding this specific Board action.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.09.07.14

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The Board is addressing this issue as part of its commitment to implement Board-approved community-issued Specific Review recommendations. The Board initiated the Pilot Holistic Review pursuant to a community-agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) on 29 April 2024.

Background

On 29 April 2024, the ICANN Board acknowledged that Pilot Holistic Review ToR was updated to incorporate clarifications and Board expectations developed by the Board's OEC to provide guidelines to the Pilot Holistic Review Team. These guidelines are intended to ensure that the Final Report addresses all information gaps and other considerations that the Board deems necessary to consider whether the Bylaws should be modified to include the Holistic Review, with support of the ICANN community, within a reasonable period of time. The ICANN Board thereby resolved to initiate the Pilot Holistic Review and directed the Pilot Holistic Review Team to follow the updated ToR and the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews, as modified to be applicable to the Pilot Holistic Review. These Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards are not to be considered an amendment to the existing Operating Standards for Specific Reviews, nor will they apply to the Holistic Review¹.

What is the proposal being considered?

Given that some elements of the process will have already taken place, the Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards were developed to support and guide the work of an already seated review team. Below is an overview of the modifications by section:

1. Introduction: This section has been modified to provide an overview of the Board's direction to modify the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews for the Pilot Holistic Review.

2. Planning Phase: This section has been modified to reflect that the scope and ToR had already been determined and that review team selection will already have taken place.

   2.5.3. Determining Review Team Leadership: In response to the need for strong facilitatory and consensus driven leadership and the Board directive for the work to be completed within 14 months, this process has been modified to allow the SO/AC Chairs to appoint the Co-Chairs for the Pilot Holistic Review.

3. Conducting the Review: This section has been modified to reflect and accommodate the Pilot Holistic Review's unique work as outlined in the ToR.

   3.8 Budgetary Resources: Given the unique nature of this pilot and the current effort across ICANN to secure its financial stability and sustainability, this section has been modified to state that the work of the Pilot Holistic Review Team will be conducted virtually and ICANN org resources will be used to assist the community-led team with composing its report.

4. Review Output: This section has been modified to accommodate the nature of the work being produced and the process for producing the work as outlined in the Pilot Holistic Review ToR.

5. Dispute Resolution: This section has been updated to provide clarity on the processes already established in the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The Operating Standards for Specific Reviews were modified to be applicable to the Pilot Holistic Review in line with the expectations of the Third Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT3) and the 29 April 2024 Board resolution, including the Pilot Holistic Review scope and community-developed ToR. The community was consulted on the ToR, and the Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards were developed to support the work and deliverables as specified in the ToR.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The ICANN Community is supportive of the Pilot Holistic Review to design the process by which the Pilot Holistic Review would be carried out in the future, as part of the implementation of ATRT3 Recommendation 3.5. During the development of the Pilot Holistic Review ToR, the community raised concerns about the clarity of the Holistic Review's scope, a lack of identified dependencies, a lack of independent examination within the Holistic Review, and the community's ability to support the Pilot Holistic Review work. These concerns were addressed in the revised ToR.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards, as well as the Final Report from ATRT3 and the Pilot Holistic Review ToR.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

The Board recognizes the importance of implementing community-issued review recommendations in a timely manner. The ICANN Board finds it important that the Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards support the review team to complete all the deliverables in their ToR on a timely basis. These Operating Standards provide guidelines that will help the review team keep the ICANN community informed and build community support for the Pilot Holistic Review deliverables.

The Board finds it to be significant that the Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards address ICANN's fiscal responsibility, considering the current focus on balancing funding and expenses.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

There are positive community impacts resulting from this Board action. The Pilot Holistic Review Operating Standards will facilitate the Pilot Holistic Review to complete its work within the 14 months and will support the development of deliverables that are well understood and supported by the ICANN community.

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

This Board action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact, by encouraging timely and efficient completion of the Pilot Holistic Review work within the specified 14-month period and fiscally prudent approach to conducting this work.

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

There are no direct security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS.

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

Proceeding with the Board mandated Pilot Holistic Review to develop community supported guidelines for how the Holistic Review would be run is both in the public interest and within ICANN's mission.

The Board's action is consistent with ICANN's commitment pursuant to Section 4.6 of the Bylaws to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders. This action will serve the public interest by fulfilling ICANN's commitment to maintaining and improving its accountability and transparency.

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?

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

Rationale for Resolution 2024.09.07.15 - 2024.09.07.16

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. ICANN84 is scheduled for 25 – 30 October 2025. Following a search and evaluation of available venues, the organization identified Muscat, Oman as a suitable location for the ICANN Public Meeting.

The organization performed a thorough analysis of the available locations that met the Meeting Location Selection Criteria (see https://meetings.icann.org/en/host). Based on the proposals and analysis, ICANN has identified Muscat, Oman as the location for ICANN84. Selection of this APAC location adheres to the geographic rotation guidelines established by the Meeting Strategy Working Group. 

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 part of this diligence, the BFC has reviewed the financial risks associated with the proposed decision and the information provided by the org 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 organization's briefing for the costs of hosting the meeting in Muscat, Oman and agrees with the BFC's recommendation that the proposal met the significant factors of the Meeting Location Selection Criteria, as well as the related costs for the facilities selected, for the October 2025 ICANN Public Meeting.

ICANN conducts Public Meetings in support of its mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and acts in the public interest by providing 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 will be accounted for in the FY26 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 2024.09.07.17 – 2024.09.07.18

ICANN is working toward the opening of the New gTLD Program: Next Round application window.

During the 2012 New gTLD Program application window, 50 percent of all applications were submitted from North America and 35 percent came from Europe. Fewer than 15 percent of the applications came from Africa, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, combined.

In its Final Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Final Report), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) underscores the importance of creating early awareness with as many potential applicants around the world as possible with sufficient time to prepare and apply for a new gTLD.

Recommendation 13.2, 13.3-7 of the Final Report states that the New gTLD Program's communications plan "should serve the goals of raising awareness about the New gTLD Program to as many potential applicants as possible around the world and making sure that potential applicants know about the program in time to apply. To serve this objective, the Working Group determined that the focus should be on timeliness, broad outreach, and accessibility."

Capacity development, communications, and outreach with a focus on global inclusivity are key to fostering diverse participation in the next round of new gTLDs. This effort is being conducted in three phases.

In Phase 1, ICANN org launched a targeted awareness campaign in March 2023 highlighting the importance of Universal Acceptance (UA) and Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in creating a more inclusive Internet. This ongoing effort, which concluded on 31 July 2024, consisted of a series of mini-campaigns targeting a mix of audiences and developing countries. These campaigns focused on countries in which users would benefit from IDNs and UA and where there is limited familiarity with the DNS.

Phase 2 consists of a targeted campaign to generate interest in and excitement about the next round within the ICANN community and among industry participants and create awareness in underserved countries where potential applicants may most benefit. This effort includes communicating strategically about the availability of support through the Applicant Support Program (ASP) and the opportunity for potential registry services providers (RSPs) to be evaluated to serve new gTLD applicants in the New gTLD Program: Next Round. This campaign began in May 2024 and will continue through November 2024.

In Phase 3, which begins in November 2024 and continues through July 2026, ICANN org will conduct a global Next Round campaign to generate awareness about the importance of the DNS and interest in new gTLDs well beyond the ICANN community, across targeted countries and audiences such as brands, local and regional governments (geographic names), nonprofit organizations, micro businesses, and civil society.

In August 2021, ICANN organization (org) launched a request for proposal (RFP) seeking a Public Relations/Strategic Communications agency to augment ICANN's Global Communications team for Phase 1. The preferred vendor was one of the vendors vetted through the RFP process.

Subsequently, ICANN contracted with the preferred vendor for a three-month period beginning August 2024 to partner with the Global Communications team to execute the communications strategy, including message and materials development, media relations, and event support to create awareness of the Applicant Support Program (Phase 2). [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. This provider will be needed for an additional 21 months, and the estimated cost is not to exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

ICANN org is now seeking approval to extend the contract with the preferred provider through July 2026.

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN utilizes available funding in the most effective and efficient manner to be in the best interests of ICANN and the global Internet community. Further, as noted above, this action is intended to have a positive impact on the Next Round of new gTLD applications, and further application rounds.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY25 and FY26 New gTLD Program budgets.

Further, this decision should not have a negative impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system, and likely will have a positive impact.

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

The Chair called the meeting to a close.