Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 7 June 2026

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.06.07.01 – 2026.06.07.02

ICANN has occupied [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. That lease is expiring in September 2026. After collaborating with a local broker, surveying other properties, and negotiating rental rates, ICANN staff recommended [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

The size of the space is sufficient because there are no plans to materially increase headcount at the Singapore office, and it fully supports hybrid working needs. After a [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information], ICANN staff recommended a [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] lease to achieve favorable rental terms, to provide stability for the Singapore staff as well as to maintain flexibility to support future hybrid working needs. Over the past year, ICANN staff engaged a local broker and evaluated multiple alternative office configurations and locations, including reduced-footprint and relocation options, and determined the proposed lease provided the most cost-effective and operationally suitable outcome. Rental costs at comparable properties are substantially above those reflected in the new lease [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

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 maintain an office in Singapore and ICANN presence in the APAC region, including the ability to host meetings and collaborate with local stakeholders and community members.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, which will be accounted for in the FY27 and future ICANN budgets.

There is no anticipated impact to the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this action.

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

Rationale for Resolution 2026.06.07.03

The Framework and Process document describes the Ombuds Office scope, responsibilities, processes, and timescales for conflict resolution, unfairness complaints, and harassment complaints. A transparent, clear and robust framework is essential to maintaining an impartial and fair process. By clearly defining these important aspects, the Framework and Process will help establish the Ombuds Office as a trustworthy community resource and hold the Office accountable to established professional standards. The revised Framework and Process updates the outdated operative 2009 Ombuds Framework to reflect the evolution of the Office, including the incorporation of recommendations from Work Stream 2 of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The content is informed by consultation with the ICANN community through the Public Comment Process, with the Board, as well as benchmarking against peer ombuds offices and international standards to ensure best practices.

Approving the revised Framework and Process is consistent with ICANN's mission and in the public interest as it supports the Ombuds role as an independent, impartial and neutral voice to promote fairness with the ICANN community as it continues is crucial work of helping support ICANN's mission.

There is no anticipated fiscal impact stemming from the approval of the ICANN Ombuds Office Framework and Process. There will be no impact on the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS as a result of this action.

This Framework and Process has been subject to Public Comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.06.07.04

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The ICANN Board is addressing this issue as part of its obligations under the GNSO Policy Development Process defined within the Bylaws. On 12 March 2025, the GNSO Council unanimously voted to approve all of the 47 Transfer Policy Review recommendations in the Transfer Policy Review Working Group's Final Report. The GNSO Council transmitted its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 10 April 2025.

The Board held a public comment period on the Final Report from 28 April 2025 to 16 June 2025, with the Report of Public Comments published on 2 July 2025.

As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the Board provided notice to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on 25 July 2025 of the recommendations and requested notice of any public policy concerns from the GAC, with no concerns received by the requested date of 18 August 2025.

The Board acknowledges community concerns about the timing and process for the Board's review of PDP Working Group Recommendations that have been approved by the GNSO Council (these recommendations were cited as one example) and is reviewing its processes to improve their efficiency and transparency.

What is the proposal being considered?

This proposed action is in furtherance the GNSO Council resolution to initiate a two-phased PDP to review the Transfer Policy, and in turn on the proposed recommendations as the PDP WG specified in the Final Report.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The PDP Working Group opened two public comment proceedings on the Initial Report of the Transfer Policy Review Working Group and its updated version, one in 2022 (Phase 1(a)) and one in 2024 (complete version of initial report). Thirty-four (34) and 17 submissions from groups, organizations, and individuals were received, respectively. The WG responded to public comment submissions in subsequent sessions, using a Public Comment Review Tool for both the 2022 and 2024 public comment proceedings.

In addition to regular updates provided to and during GNSO Council meetings, webinars on the Transfer Policy Review took place on 4 and 9 September 2024.

The ICANN Board opened a Public Comment Proceeding on the Final Report from 28 April to 16 June 2025, and the Public Comment Summary Report was published on 2 July 2025. The ICANN Board received a total of 11 submissions from groups and individuals.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board considered various significant materials and documents, including the Transfer Policy Review Working Group Final Report, the submissions received during the Public Comment Proceeding on the Final Report that opened from 28 April to 16 June 2025, and the ICANN Feasibility Assessment.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Taking action on the recommendations is aligned with the Board's obligations under the PDP defined in the ICANN Bylaws. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP to review the Transfer Policy by  resolution. The Transfer Policy Review Working Group (WG) was then tasked with determining if changes to the policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers.

The WG aimed to achieve positive community impacts in proposing updates to the Transfer Policy, which include enhancing the minimum-security requirements for the technical aspects of an inter-registrar transfer, adding clarity on when a registrar MAY, MUST, or MUST NOT deny a transfer, converting optional security locks to mandatory locks to create a more consistent policy, adding required notices to alert registrants of potential action on their domain names, and clarifying previously confusing definitions and text. In making its recommendations, the WG aimed to update the current Transfer Policy to allow for a consistent, secure, and streamlined process for transfers across all accredited registrars, reducing confusion and simplifying registrants' experience. The Board has reviewed the recommendations and believes they support the goals of increased security and other benefits for domain name registrants.

The Board notes the importance of Recommendation #21, which grants to registrars the ability to deny transfers if the domain name has been identified as a source of DNS Abuse. The Board notes that Recommendation 21 is phrased in a manner that allows registrars to deny a transfer on this basis ("may") but does not require ("must") this to serve as a grounds for denial. The Board recognizes that Recommendation 21, even with permissive wording, represents an important improvement from the current Transfer Policy, and the Board did not want to stand in the way of this improvement coming into force. The Board is interested in better understanding why the GNSO Council elected to use the permissive instead of mandatory wording. The Board recognizes that it is up to the GNSO to recommend substantive policy recommendations, and accordingly the Board plans to further engage with the GNSO Council on this topic.

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

Adoption of the recommendations will require changes in processes and procedures for gTLD registries as well as accredited registrars, which will entail associated costs.

In addition, ICANN org resources will be required for the implementation of these recommendations, including drafting policy with an Implementation Review Team as well as design and production of a separate Change of Registrant Data (CORD) Policy.

These efforts are considered necessary to address the issues that are part of this Policy Development Process and to enhance the existing Transfer Policy to the benefit of all parties concerned.

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

The WG spent considerable time discussing how to improve the security of the inter-registrar transfer process. In its Final Report, the WG noted, "the recommendations include adjustments and enhancements that seek to provide an appropriate level of security for the inter-Registrar transfer process while also taking into account the customer experience, applicable law, and operational considerations for Registries and Registrars."

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

This action is within ICANN's mission and mandate, and action arises out of the GNSO's defined policy development process in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws.

Rationale for Resolutions 2026.06.07.05 – 2026.06.07.06

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

On 13 November 2024, the GNSO Council voted with a GNSO Supermajority to approve all 14 Recommendations set forth in the IDN EPDP Phase 2 Final Report. Subsequently, on 9 December 2024, pursuant to Annex A-1 of the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Council submitted its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board of Directors, noting that "This Recommendations Report is being sent to the ICANN Board for its review of the recommendations approved by the GNSO Council, which the GNSO Council recommends be adopted by the ICANN Board."

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. 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 community concerns about the timing and process for the Board's review of PDP Working Group Recommendations that have been approved by the GNSO Council (these recommendations were cited as one example) and is reviewing its processes to improve their efficiency and transparency.

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 ICANN Board adopted all 58 Phase 1 Recommendations on 8 June 2024, and implementation is currently underway.

The EPDP Team published its Phase 2 Initial Report for Public Comment in April 2024. Following its review of all the public comments received, the EPDP Team finalized its Recommendations and submitted its Phase 2 Final Report to the GNSO Council in October 2024. The Council approved the Final Report, including all 14 Consensus Policy Recommendations. The Board is now considering the Recommendations, which cover the following topics: the "same entity" principle, IDN table harmonization, variant deployment requirements, source domain determination, the "same entity" lifecycle, inter-registrar transfers, UDRP & Rights Protection Mechanism transfers, Registry-Registrar communication, variant domain disclosure, and IDN Implementation Guidelines.

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 requesting 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 2 Initial Report from 11 April to 21 May 2024.

Throughout its work, the EPDP Team has maintained lines of communication with the ccPDP4 Working Group (WG), which was conducting policy development work on IDN ccTLDs. These communications focused on common topics which appeared in the charters of both the EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4, namely variant management and the IDN Implementation Guidelines. For Phase 2, the ccPDP4 WG and/or ccNSO Council provided input on the document process and approval step pertaining to the IDN Implementation Guidelines. The goal of this communication was to meet the ICANN Board's request that the GNSO and the ccNSO keep each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution for variant gTLDs and variant ccTLDs

In March 2024, the EPDP Team held a working session during ICANN79 to review draft recommendation text from the Phase 2 Initial Report. By the Public Comment closure date, the EPDP Team received a total of eight (8) submissions from groups, organizations, and individuals. Following a thorough review of the submissions, the EPDP Team finalized its Recommendations and Implementation Guidance. The EPDP Team delivered its Phase 2 Final Report to the GNSO Council on 07 October 2024.

Following the GNSO Council's approval, the ICANN Board sought the community's input via Public Comment on the Final Report from 23 December 2024 to 03 February 2025. The ICANN Board received a total of three (3) submissions from groups and individuals, all supporting the Final Report as drafted.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The EPDP-IDNs Team thoroughly reviewed the Public Comment submissions concerning the Phase 2 Initial Report and incorporated numerous suggestions, where necessary, to the Final Report.

During the review, the EPDP Team took note of those topic areas where there was a relatively high concentration of submissions expressing concerns or proposing alternative language. Examples of such topics relate to the automatic allocation and activation process, source domain name, Transfer Policy, mechanism and service for the realization of the "same entity" principle, including the use of Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS), and defining the proper vehicle for the update of the IDN Implementation Guidelines. Another topic that was brought to attention was related to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) and transaction fees. The report detailing how the comments were addressed can be found here.

What significant materials did the Board review?

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

• The 26 August 1999 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
• The 25 February 2012 IDN Implementation Guidelines
• 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).
• The 26 January 2020 Transfer Policy
• The 24 November 2020 Phase 1 Final Report on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
• IDN-related Outputs under Topic 25 in the SubPro PDP Final Report published 2 February 2021.
• The 8 November 2023 Phase 1 Final Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
• The 11 April 2024 Phase 2 Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
• The 7 October 2024 Phase 2 Final Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
• The 24 October 2024 Second-Level Reference Label Generation Rule (LGR)
• The 13 November 2024 GNSO Council resolution of the IDN EPDP Phase 2 Final Report Recommendations.
• The 9 December 2024 GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board Regarding Adoption of the Phase 2 Final Recommendations from the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)
• The December 2024 - February 2025 Public Comment on the IDN EPDP Phase 2 Final Report

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Adopting the Recommendations will positively impact ICANN by upholding the pivotal role of IDNs in enabling global access to domain names in native languages and scripts. These Recommendations allow for implementing variant domain names effectively, making IDNs more usable across communities. More generally, IDNs not only foster a more linguistically diverse and trusted 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 advancing the goal of an inclusive and globally accessible Internet and remains a priority for ICANN.

Additionally, in its rationale accompanying its 3 March 2019 resolution on Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs, 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.

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

Implementation of the IDN EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations will require resources from across ICANN org. ICANN org's cross-functional implementation assessment evaluated financial and systems impacts as part of its review, finding no concerns that would prevent implementation. Specific resource requirements will be scoped and planned through the implementation process, subject to availability of resources. It is further anticipated that registry and registrar systems will also require updates to accommodate new policy requirements.

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

The IDN EPDP Phase 2 Final Report identified the "same entity" principle as a core requirement for second-level variant domain management, under which an allocated variant domain name must remain associated with the same registrant throughout its lifecycle. Further, the Final Report calls for a consistent definition of variant domains across the gTLD and its variant gTLDs through IDN table harmonization. These Recommendations aim to balance the usability of IDNs while maintaining the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

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 help 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.