The attached ICANN Board-Stakeholder Action List sets out what the Board heard in Toronto where Board action is required and what the Board plans to do. In the future, it is intended that an Action List like this one will be published no later than 1 month after each meeting. Just prior to the following meeting an updated version of the Action List will be published setting out what the Board has done with respect to each item below.The production of an Action List is a relatively new practice and we are still working on the timings, logistics and processes required for it to be effective and efficient. Your feedback is welcomed.
| Topic | What we heard where action is needed | Proposed Action | What We’ve Done |
| WCIT | Suggestion to establish an ICANN mailing list for those in the ICANN community who will be at WCIT (possibly widen list to I*). | Direct the staff to set up mailing list. | Completed. |
| Strategic Planning | Do not proceed with 2013-2016 Strategic Plan. A new procedure is coming and it needs to ensure there are mechanisms for hearing input so the Community feels heard. | The Board has been discussing this since its September board workshop in Los Angeles and plans to continue to work on it and report back as soon as possible. The Board recognizes that any strategic planning framework will need to include the results of the African Strategic Working Group. | |
| GAC Advice | The Board heard several matters from the GAC, which it expects will be addressed in the GAC Communiqué, but specifically notes that the timing of the Board’s response to the GAC Communiqué was sub-optimal. | The Board acknowledges the problem and will endeavor to put in place a mechanism to ensure timely arrival of its response. | |
| WHOIS Review Report | There is no consensus on the actions that should follow the WHOIS Review. | The Board will discuss the WHOIS Review during its Board meeting this afternoon. | Completed. The Board accepted the WHOIS Review Team’s recommendations and additionally initiated a review of the purpose and structure of WHOIS. |
| Patents in Policy Processes | Various parts of the GNSO have indicated that a future policy in this area may be needed and that we should address it before it becomes a concern. | Board to request “expert advice” on this topic and then put out the recommended approach for public comment to be adopted by the Board. | |
| Article 29 Working Party Letter | Many concerns were expressed. | The letter will be taken into account in finalizing the negotiations on the RAA. | |
| JAS Applications | JAS applications need to be given priority in this round and improved in the next round. | Treatment during this round is in the hands of the CEO and the new gTLD Committee. Treatment in future rounds will be taken up when the next round is formulated. | |
| New gTLDs – General implementation issues: -URS IDN Variant -BC and IPC requirements -IANA readiness -Registry services readiness -Compliance readiness |
Numerous comments. Concern expressed that we are not ready in some areas and will not be ready in time. | The Board is instructing the CEO to focus his full attention and energy on all implementation actions necessary to keep the program on track. | |
| New gTLD Funds | Document the total amount borrowed from the reserve fund to finance the pre-revenue period of the new gTLD program, and document the intended repayment schedule. |
We will do so. | |
| Prioritization Draw | Generally positive feedback that IDN’s should have priority; a number of suggestions were made to give preference to various subgroups in association with the Prioritization Draw. | The new gTLD Committee will consider all feedback from this meeting and the comment period. All suggestions are being considered by and will be decided by the CEO and the new gTLD Committee. | |
| Rights Protection in New gTLDs | A handful of concerns were raised regarding the rights protection mechanism(s). The IPC and business constituencies have reached consensus on further mechanisms for new gTLD rights protection. They agreed to socialize these to the rest of the GNSO. |
All of these are in the hands of the CEO and the new gTLD Committee.
The Board looks forward to receiving input on these suggestions from the GNSO. |
|
| Trademark Clearinghouse | There are a significant number of issues with regard to the Trademark Clearinghouse both from an implementation and cost point of view.
Interest in whether the final draft agreement and the signed agreement for the trademark clearinghouse will be made public. The rights to the trademark clearinghouse database must remain with ICANN. |
The Board supports the CEO’s decision to make solving these issues his top priority.
Yes, it will be made public.
The rights will remain with ICANN. |
|
| Submission of Public Forum Topics | Public Forum questions submitted in advance should include a couple of hinting sentences so everyone can be prepared. | Forwarded to staff and the Public Participation Committee (PPC) for implementation. | |
| Intersessional Meetings | 1) Various parts of the GNSO expressed the belief that it would assist the new gTLD process if ICANN facilitated an intersessional meeting for the GAC; 2) The registry and registrar constituency and the NTAG believe that ICANN should support an intersessional meeting for them. | The Board will consider any formal requests received for these intersessional meetings. |
