Closed Forums

Explanation: Over the past several years, the Nominating Committee has expressed concern that being required to count more than one country of citizenship for diversity purposes often makes it difficult to select the best candidates for the Board seats that the Nominating Committee is mandated to fill. In carrying out its responsibilities to fill Seats 1 through 8, the Nominating Committee shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members who in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Bylaws.

The Nominating Committee also noted that some of the candidates have often lived in a country for many years, and thereby better represent the interests of that country than any country of which the candidates may be citizens.

In the proposal, domicile, not just citizenship, is to be considered in the diversity calculation. The Nominating Committee members unanimously agreed that the proposed Bylaws revisions would alleviate the concerns.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation:At the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce, in February 2008, ICANN’s chairman announced a broad public consultation over possible changes to the organization. ICANN’s President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) then prepared two documents - an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document, and a Transition Action Plan - using comments made to the Midterm Review and its previous work to help set out the requirements of a post-JPA ICANN and the steps needed to consult the community.

In those documents, five key areas are identified, and each of those areas is broken down into constituent parts in order to identify particular discussion points, focus debate, and produce specific steps forward. Those documents have been through one period of public comment and, having been revised as a result, have now entered a second.

In an effort to progress the consultation, an interactive forum has been set up that focuses comments and discussion on the individuals points and suggestions included in the revised documents. Please visit that forum at http://comment.icann.org/en/iic/. Alternatively, we have set up specific email addresses for each of the five main areas. Emails sent to each will appear in a specific “emailed comments” folder within this area’s folder on the discussion forum.

Announcement | Discussion forum | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The GNSO Council approved on 4 September 2008 a motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process (PDP). The motion, which is pending for Board action, proposes new texts [PDF, 49K] for two of the nine denial reasons (#8 and #9) while recommending that work on denial reasons #5 and #7 be suspended until such time as a Policy Development Process is initiated on PDP C on IRTP operational rule enhancement as outlined in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations of 19 March 2008.

The public is invited to submit comments until 6 October 2008 before final consideration by the Board.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments