Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 8 June 2024

Rationale for Resolution 2024.06.08.01

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.

Hadia Elminiawi is currently the Chief Expert on International Policies at Egypt's National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA). Previously, she managed operations and foreign relations for the Egyptian ccTLD (.eg) for 14 years. She has been an active member of group 5 (industry 4.0) of the Egypt Internet of Things forum representing NTRA since January 2023. Hadia currently chairs the African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) and holds leadership roles in related organizations. Hadia holds a Master of Science in Leadership and Management from St. Istvan University in Hungary, a Bachelor of Science in Electronics and Communications from the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, and has completed post-graduate studies in Computer Science at the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.

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.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.06.08.02 – 2024.06.08.03

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.  ICANN83 is scheduled for 9-12 June 2025.  Following a search and evaluation of available venues, the organization identified Prague, Czechia as a suitable location for the ICANN83 Public Meeting. 

The organization performed a thorough analysis of the available locations that met the Meeting Location Selection Criteria.  Based on the proposals and analysis, ICANN has identified Prague, Czechia as the location for ICANN83.  Selection of this Europe 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 Prague, Czechia 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 June 2025 ICANN Public Meeting. 

The costs of an ICANN public meeting include the ICANN-paid fraction of the contracts that the Board has authorized the Interim President and CEO, or her designee(s), to enter into and other costs such as airfare and meetings support that do not require Board authorization since the value of these costs are below the threshold requiring Board approval in the ICANN Contracting and Disbursement Policy.

Prior to the BFC's consideration, the Board received a briefing from ICANN org regarding the range of factors that support the selection of Prague, Czechia for this meeting, including ICANN org's health, safety and security assessment, and mitigation plans for ICANN meeting participants in each of these areas.

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. 

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 2024.06.08.04 – 2024.06.08.07

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

On 22 December 2023, the GNSO Council voted with a GNSO Supermajority to approve all 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 are now being 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.

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 58 Consensus Policy recommendations. The Board is now considering the proposed set of recommendations, which cover the following topics: the consistent definition and technical utilization of RZ-LGR; "Same entity" at the top-level; adjustments in registry agreement, registry service, registry transition process, and other processes/procedures related to the domain name lifecycle; and adjustments to string similarity review, objection process, string contention resolution, reserved strings, and other policies and procedures.

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 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.

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.

During the review, the EPDP Team noted concerns raised by some commenters that several recommendations did not align with the conservatism principle (e.g., Final Recommendations 3.11, 3.12, and 8.1). After extensive discussion, the EPDP Team agreed not to change those recommendations, but did agree to enhance other recommendations concerning the evaluation of variant gTLD applications (e.g., Final Recommendation 3.5, Implementation Guidance 3.6 and 3.9). This approach was intended to strike a balance between encouraging and supporting the introduction of variant gTLDs while also promoting the security and stability of the Domain Name System.

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)

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Adopting the final 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 also discussed a potential fiscal impact on applicants as the IDN-EPDP Team's fee-related recommendations would be absorbed across all applicants.

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 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.

The Board also notes, in relation to the recommendations concerning application rounds, that these rounds require reiterative financial investments by both Org and the community, and looks forward to engaging on the longer-term evolution of the New gTLD Program.

As noted in the Scorecard, the Board is continuing to discuss a set of recommendations that relate to fees and fee structures.

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 considers 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 Resolutions 2024.06.08.08 – 2024.06.08.10

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The actions taken by the Board are in response to inputs received during the Board-community consultation ("Consultation") as well as in-depth consideration of the Bylaws issues with respect to Registry Voluntary Commitments ("RVCs") and other comparable Registry Agreement ("RA") commitments that could be proposed to restrict content in gTLDs in the New gTLD Program: Next Round. Such RVCs are envisioned in Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ("SubPro") Policy Development Process ("PDP") Recommendations 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, and 9.13.

Over the course of its deliberation concerning these RA commitments, the Board has recognized a fundamental issue. The Bylaws recognize that ICANN has a limited technical Mission and state that ICANN shall not act outside of that Mission. Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws states that "ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide…[.]" As such, if ICANN enters into Next Round RAs that include content-restrictive commitments, this action could be inconsistent with the Bylaws.

The Board raised this concern to the GNSO during the SubPro PDP, when the SubPro recommendations were pending Board consideration, when the Board adopted the recommendations concerning RVCs, and leading up to and during the Consultation. The GNSO did not revise its recommendations in light of this concern. In its Final Report, the SubPro PDP Working Group expressed a view that including commitments in Next Round RAs to restrict content is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN's control is required to pass judgment on "content".

In adopting these recommendations, the Board cited the GNSO Council's second Clarifying Statement to the effect that ICANN and the applicant both must agree that a proffered commitment is clear, detailed, mutually understood, and sufficiently objective and measurable so as to be enforceable, as a practicable matter and under the Bylaws.

After analyzing all the Consultation inputs as well as considering the Bylaws issues which were explored in the Consultation and mitigation options, the Board is finalizing its decision on prohibiting content-restrictive commitments in Next Round RAs.

The Board's decision on this fundamental issue means that ICANN org can proceed with designing and implementing registry commitment evaluation criteria and processes that are consistent with the Bylaws, thereby reducing the risk of future challenges based on assertions that such commitments exceed the scope of ICANN's Mission. This Board action also provides the community with clarity on the Board's interpretation of what the ICANN Bylaws permit for RVCs and other comparable RA commitments.

What is the proposal being considered?

The Board is taking action to adopt a high-level approach for registry commitments in the New gTLD Program: Next Round to specifically exclude content-restrictive commitments from inclusion in Next Round RAs.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

On 26 October 2023, the Board directed ICANN org to initiate and facilitate a Consultation regarding the implementation of RVCs in the New gTLD Program: Next Round. The purpose of the Consultation was "to ensure that the framework for implementing these [SubPro PDP] recommendations [pertaining to RVCs] remains consistent with the ICANN Bylaws."

The Consultation had three key components: 1) community review and input to a proposed implementation framework; 2) a webinar to provide an overview of the proposed framework and an opportunity for initial community questions; and 3) a plenary session at ICANN79 to focus discussion on hypothetical examples about the practical implications of RVCs related to content in gTLDs (please refer to the ICANN79 Policy Outcomes Report for the session recap).

In requesting inputs to the Consultation, the Board stated that, "In order for ICANN to have the ability to enter into the content-related commitments recommended by the GNSO for the New gTLD Program: Next Round, a Bylaws amendment appears to be required."

Inputs to the Consultation were submitted by the following groups: At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC"), Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC"), and the GNSO's Business Constituency, Intellectual Property Constituency, Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency, Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, and Registries Stakeholder Group.

While the Board encouraged inputs from all stakeholders and provided a deadline extension to community groups outside of ALAC, GAC, and GNSO to submit input by 12 April 2024, they affirmatively declined to participate in the Consultation.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The Consultation showed that the community generally does not support amending the Bylaws to clarify the scope of ICANN's Mission as it relates to content-restrictive RA commitments. The community groups that provided Consultation inputs expressed varied reasons for not supporting a Bylaws amendment. Some groups believe that ICANN should not accept any content-restrictive RA commitments and, as a result, no Bylaws amendment is needed. Others believe that the Bylaws are clear that accepting and enforcing such commitments does not equate to ICANN regulating content, so a Bylaws amendment is unnecessary. The Consultation inputs also showed that there is no community consensus on reliance on a "third party monitor" risk-mitigation approach proposed by the SubPro PDP Working Group to evaluate content-related issues to inform ICANN contractual enforcement. For additional concerns and issues raised in the Consultation, please refer to the ICANN org-produced overview of inputs received.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board took into account: Consultation inputs received to the proposed implementation framework for RVCs; community conversations during the ICANN79 Plenary Session; GAC's Issues of Importance with respect to RVCs in the ICANN77 Washington Communiqué and ICANN79 San Juan Communiqué; and materials as detailed in the October 2024 resolution, including the SubPro Final Report and GNSO Council's second Clarifying Statement. Furthermore, the Board revisited the Bylaws issues which were explored in the Consultation and considered mitigation options such as the "third party monitor" risk-mitigation approach proposed by the SubPro PDP Working Group to evaluate any content-restrictive RA commitments.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

The Board's deliberations centered on two issues:

1. the risks of permitting content-restrictive commitments in Next Round RAs in light of updates concerning the scope of ICANN's Mission that have been made to the Bylaws since the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program; and

2. whether any mitigation measure, such as a "third party monitor" risk-mitigation approach proposed by the SubPro PDP Working Group and explored in the Consultation, would eliminate such risks.

The Board believes that if ICANN were to permit content-restrictive commitments to be included in Next Round RAs, there would be significant potential for ICANN's ability to negotiate and enforce those commitments to be challenged as beyond ICANN's Mission. If this type of challenge was successful, this would create far-reaching negative impacts on other RAs entered into within the Next Round.

Issues With Content-Restrictive RA Commitments Under ICANN Bylaws

The ICANN Bylaws recognize that ICANN has a limited technical Mission and state that ICANN shall not act outside of that Mission. Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws states: "ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a)."

On its face, Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws only permits the regulation of content if such regulation is within the express scope of ICANN's Mission set forth in Section 1.1(a), which is to "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems…."

Section 1.1(a) also recognizes that, as part of its Mission, ICANN:

Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS) and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains. In this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:

• For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and

• That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems.

The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission (please refer to Bylaws Article 1, Section 1.1(a)(i) for details).

Some have argued that the reference to Section 1.1(a) in Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws means that a content-restrictive RVC could be in support of ICANN's Mission and therefore enforceable. However, an opposing argument has been raised that the reference to Section 1.1(a) in this "content regulation" clause was included to reflect the community's emphasis on the new, more limited expression of ICANN's Mission that was incorporated into the Bylaws, including the incorporation of topics available for consensus policies for ICANN's contracted parties. Because the Bylaws are not clear on whether this provision supports ICANN including and enforcing content-restrictive RVCs, the scope of ICANN's ability to "regulate" content is most appropriately considered in a manner that is very narrowly tailored to ICANN's Mission of securing the stable and secure operation of the Internet. Under this test, it would be difficult to argue that wide-ranging content-restrictive RA commitments are in support of ICANN's Mission and within the Bylaws.

Leading up to and during the Consultation, various stakeholders have asserted that Section 1.1(d) of the ICANN Bylaws could protect ICANN from being challenged on the basis of including content-restrictive RA commitments in future agreements. Two different clauses in Section 1.1(d) have been cited to support this assertion. 

The first clause, Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A)(2) of the Bylaws, provides that a registry agreement or registrar accreditation agreement "to the extent its terms do not vary materially from the form of registry agreement or registrar accreditation agreement that existed on 1 October 2016" may not be challenged by any person "on the basis that such terms and conditions conflict with or are in violation of, ICANN's Mission or otherwise exceed the scope of ICANN's authority or powers pursuant to these Bylaws."

However, it is highly likely that many proposed future content-restrictive RA commitments would be specific and individual to the specific gTLD. As a result, any such "new" content-restrictive RA commitment would, on its face, "vary materially" from the terms of the RA and RAA that existed in October 2016. In addition, the Next Round RAs are likely to differ in material ways from the form of RA in place on 1 October 2016. Both of these issues are reasons why the clause at Section 1.1(d)(ii)(A)(2) of the Bylaws cannot be relied upon to shield ICANN from challenge on the basis of the Bylaws.

The second clause that has been cited as a potential basis for ICANN to enter into Next Round RAs that include content-restrictive commitments is Article 1, Section 1.1(d)(iv) of the Bylaws. Section 1.1(d)(iv) provides that, notwithstanding the rest of Section 1.1, ICANN "has the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission."  However, the mere ability to enter into and enforce agreements does not shield ICANN from needing to critically evaluate the substance and impact of those agreements to ensure that the obligations contained in such agreements are reasonably necessary to enable ICANN to pursue its Mission of ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.

Public interest commitments can take a variety of forms, many of which would not involve the regulation of content. While this provision allows ICANN to enter into agreements with public interest commitments (likely including some RVCs), it does not expressly authorize ICANN to enter into public interest commitments if their enforcement would constitute the regulation of content. In order to enter into any agreement, ICANN must believe that the proposed terms (including any public interest commitments) are being entered into in service of ICANN's Mission, which is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. As noted above, it is unlikely that ICANN's enforcement of a content-restrictive RA commitment would, by itself, be considered necessary to support ICANN's Mission.

GNSO-Proposed "Third Party Monitor" Model

The SubPro PDP Working Group suggested that ICANN could address any Bylaws concerns related to content-restrictive RA commitments through the appointment of a third party to monitor and evaluate the registry operator's compliance with a commitment to limit permissible content in second level registrations. In this scenario, the registry operator would commit to remedy any violations of content-restrictive RA commitments identified by the third party monitor and ICANN would retain enforcement rights with respect to registry operator's failure to comply with the third party's directions to remedy a content-related breach.

While such a model could reduce ICANN's administrative burden in overseeing a content-restrictive RA commitment, the Board is not persuaded that granting monitoring and assessment responsibilities to a third party would adequately address the Bylaws issues. In such cases, the third party would serve as a finder of fact regarding the existence of a breach, but ultimately it would be ICANN - and not the third party - that would take enforcement action based on the registry operator's failure to remedy the violation of a content-restrictive RA commitment.

Section 1.1(c) of the Bylaws prohibits ICANN from regulating content, not merely enforcing content restrictions. The Bylaws provision also makes clear that "regulating" includes the imposition of rules or restrictions addressing content. If ICANN were to enter into an RA with a content-restrictive commitment, for which compliance with the commitment is monitored and assessed by a third party, it is likely that ICANN would still be considered to have imposed rules and restrictions on content by entering such a commitment into the applicable agreement. Further, if ICANN itself takes any enforcement steps against a registry operator as a result of its non-compliance with a content-restrictive RA commitment, then ICANN is back in a content-based enforcement role that does not appear aligned with the Bylaws.

In considering the feasibility of ICANN relying on third party monitoring and enforcement, the Board was provided with information on analogous situations, including situations involving censorship under the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution regarding the freedom of speech. The prevailing learning is that the government cannot effect censorship that would be unlawful if the U.S. government did it directly merely by creating a regulatory environment that encourages private parties to censor that same content. While ICANN is not a government, and the ICANN Bylaws make clear that "ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority", First Amendment case law has clear parallels to this analysis given the similarities between the First Amendment and the restriction on ICANN content regulation in the ICANN Bylaws.

By analogy here, ICANN cannot avoid the Bylaws restriction on regulating content by outsourcing compliance monitoring to a third party. In that case, ICANN would be harnessing the energy of private third parties to do what it cannot permissibly do itself.

Board Conclusions

The Board is not persuaded that the Bylaws provide any differentiation between who is empowered to monitor or evaluate whether a registry operator violated a content-restrictive RA commitment when the ultimate enforcement of that contractual provision is still only possible through ICANN. 

In light of the issues that have been identified under the Bylaws and the Consultation inputs, the Board determines that permitting content-restrictive commitments in Next Round RAs does not appear to be aligned with the Bylaws, and there are no satisfactory risk mitigation alternatives to support the stable, secure, and predictable operation of future new gTLDs if ICANN were to include such commitments in Next Round RAs.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Excluding content-restrictive commitments in Next Round RAs is in the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN. The reason is that this approach will enable ICANN org to proceed with designing and implementing registry commitment evaluation criteria and processes that are consistent with the Bylaws, thereby reducing the risk of future challenges based on assertions that such commitments exceed the scope of ICANN's Mission.

This approach may limit the types of acceptable registry commitments, and in turn narrow applicants' options for addressing third-party concerns that arise from Objections, Advice, or comments with respect to their applied-for gTLD strings. Nevertheless, this approach will not impact any applicant's ability to address third party concerns via other avenues, such as forming its own registration policies or making commitments about the content in their applied-for gTLDs outside of ICANN's agreement.

Because the introduction of Public Interest Commitments ("PICs") (including voluntary PICs in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program that are comparable to the RVCs that will be implemented in the Next Round) was in response to GAC Advice concerning the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, consideration has been given to whether the Board's action today would be contradictory to any prior GAC Advice.

The GAC has never issued Advice that ICANN must accept and enter into agreements containing PICs, RVCs, or any other type of RA commitments that restrict content in gTLDs or that ICANN must accept any specific registry commitments in future RAs other than the mandatory PICs and safeguard PICs identified in the ICANN46 Beijing Communiqué. The prior GAC Advice concerning mandatory and safeguard PICs will continue to be followed in the Next Round per the SubPro recommendations. The prior GAC Advice concerning specific applied-for strings was application-specific, and has no direct applicability to evaluation of future applications for new gTLDs. However, the prior GAC Advice could help ICANN org and applicants to anticipate the types of applications that may be the subject of GAC Advice in the Next Round.

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

This approach will keep ICANN org out of the complexity of monitoring and enforcing content-restrictive RA commitments, reducing the related financial impact. Similarly, this approach is designed to support ICANN acting consistently with its Bylaws. Creation of a bright-line prohibition on content-restrictive commitments in Next Round RAs should reduce a risk of challenges, and their associated legal costs, to ICANN's implementation of such commitments based on the grounds that ICANN violated its Mission through the imposition of rules or restrictions on website content.

Nevertheless, this approach will also require ICANN org to conduct an evaluation for each proposed registry commitment based on defined criteria and established processes to exclude content-restrictive RA commitments from approval. During its May 2024 workshop, the Board aligned on the view that RA commitments to restrict registration eligibility, for example, should not be considered to be "content restrictive." Provided the Board proceeds to direct ICANN org to take this implementation approach, ICANN org will develop a review mechanism to distinguish between permitted registry commitments and content-restrictive registry commitments that will not be accepted for inclusion in Next Round RAs. Such a potential review mechanism may incur costs to both ICANN and applicants.

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

There are no anticipated security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS as a result of today's Board action to adopt the high-level approach for RVCs and other comparable RA commitments in the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

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

This Board 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's decisions and actions are guided by the following Core Values: "where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the DNS market" and "[i]ntroduc[e] and promot[e] competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." (See ICANN Bylaws at Section 1.2(b)(iv)).

This Board action is also consistent with Section 1.1(c) of the ICANN Bylaws, which states that "ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that use services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a)."

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 action by the Board fits under its fiduciary duty and oversight role of the organization, and is a necessary step in carrying out the Board's previous commitment to ensure Next Round RAs include only commitments which are enforceable as a practicable matter and within the scope of ICANN's Mission, in recognition of GNSO Council's second Clarifying Statement. It should be noted that the Board encouraged input from all community groups throughout the Consultation process, and took its action of adopting the high-level approach after considering all inputs received from the ICANN multistakeholder community.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.06.08.11 – 2024.06.08.14

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The Board is addressing this issue following the GNSO Council's approval and subsequent submission of the Supplemental Recommendations.

What are the proposals being considered?

The Board is asked to consider supplemental recommendations pertaining to Topics 9, 17, 18 and 32 of the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. Specifically, the Board has considered, and is now adopting supplemental recommendations 17.2, 32.1, 32.2, and 32.10 and is not adopting supplemental recommendations 9.2, 18.1, and 18.3.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

Through its liaisons, the Board has actively observed the GNSO Council's Small Team Plus.

During ICANN79, the Small Team Plus consulted with the community and sought feedback on its draft supplemental recommendations.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

No issues were raised during the consultation.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the supplemental recommendations, the GNSO Council transmission letter, and the rationale that led to the Board's non-adoption of the original Final Report recommendations.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

The GNSO Council-approved supplemental recommendations 17.2, 32.1, 32.2, and 32.10 address the concerns the Board had previously raised for why the original recommendations were not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN. The amendments to the recommendations mean that these supplemental recommendations will be adopted and implemented in time for inclusion into the forthcoming Applicant Guidebook and help inform the next round of new gTLDs. The Board believes that the impact of adopting these recommendations will be positive on the community as they provide additional recommendations for the Applicant Support Program and provide mechanisms for future applicants to either ask for an extended evaluation - where available - or rely on limited challenges and appeals processes.

Non-adoption of supplemental recommendations 9.2, 18.1 and 18.3 is in the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN. While the Council approved some amendments to the original recommendations, the supplemental recommendations do not address the concerns previously raised by the Board when it resolved to not adopt the original versions. The Board believes that not adopting these recommendations will also have a positive impact as it will ensure consistent use of Spec 11 across the gTLD landscape and provide the Board with the required authority to act during the next round of new gTLDs.

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

This decision will have no direct fiscal impact or ramification on ICANN, the community or the public. The fiscal impact of the New gTLD Program: Next Round was previously assessed as part of the New gTLD Program: Next Round Implementation Plan on 27 July 2023, and continues to be evaluated and monitored by the Board Finance Committee and the Board. 

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

There are no anticipated security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS as a result of today's Board action.

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

This Board action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest, as per Annex A of the Bylaws, the Board needs to weigh whether GNSO-developed recommendations are in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN before adopting them.

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 process does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2024.06.08.15

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

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 Washington, D.C. Communiqué (20 June 2023), the GAC issued advice to the Board on various matters including Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets ("GAC Consensus Advice item 4.a.i"), which is related to Topic 35 of the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ("SubPro") Policy Development Process Final Report.

The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. At this time, the Board's current thinking and approach to implementing the SubPro recommendations related to Topic 35 is inconsistent or could be viewed as inconsistent with item 4.a.i of the GAC's advice in the Washington, D.C. Communiqué. Specifically, the Board notes concerns with the feasibility of implementing the GAC's advice. The GAC clarified in the Board-GAC exchange of 28 July 2023 that the advice is regarding features of the application, including the applicant's business plan, rather than the applicant's legal entity (e.g., a for-profit vs. non-profit status). However, the Board notes that ICANN org does not review business plans as part of the gTLD application process and that there would be numerous challenges in establishing a method for evaluating such plans for a commercial vs. noncommercial status. Additionally, the Board notes concerns related to potential legal prohibitions against the use of "drawing lots" as a method of resolving contention, as such methods for choosing "winners" may not be within the bounds of California law. Finally, the Board notes that the use of "drawing lots" is also not supported by or consistent with the SubPro recommendations and therefore the current plans for implementation of these recommendations may not be consistent with the GAC's advice.

What is the proposal being considered?

The Board is anticipating that, unless a mutually agreeable resolution can be found, the Board will reject the GAC Consensus Advice on Auctions. As part of the Board's obligation when considering GAC Consensus Advice, the Board must initiate a dialogue with the GAC in order to see if a mutually agreeable decision can be reached. As a result, the Board is taking this action in order to inform the GAC of this intention.

Given this, the Board is taking action at this time to initiate the required Bylaws Consultation Process. As part of the Board-Consultation process, the Board will provide required written notice to the GAC stating, in reasonable detail, the GAC Consensus Advice the Board determines not to follow, and the reasons why such GAC advice may not be followed. The Board looks forward to engaging in good faith with the GAC to see if a mutually acceptable solution can be reached that would preclude the need for the Board to act inconsistently with advice from the GAC.

What significant materials did the Board Review?

In taking this action, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Washington, D.C. Communiqué (https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann77-washington-d-c-communique?language_id=1)

• Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ("SubPro") Policy Development Process Final Report (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf)

• Board-GAC exchange regarding Clarifying Questions (https://gac.icann.org/minutes/public/gac-board-communique-icann77-clarification-notes-28jul23.pdf?time=1702857600020)

• Process for Consultations between the ICANN Board of Directors and the Governmental Advisory Committee (https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/2013-process-for-consultations-between-icann-and-gac)

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Taking this action will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the advice from the GAC concerning Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Entering into a dialogue with the GAC is also positive, as this demonstrates ICANN's commitment to the unique role of the GAC and GAC Consensus Advice, as well as the Board's commitment to good faith dialogue with the GAC to explore areas of mutual agreement.

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

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution as the consultation process is anticipated to be conducted telephonically.

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

Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to 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?

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

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

This action is in support of the public interest and ICANN's mission as it will assist in ensuring that public policy considerations are appropriately taken into account in proposed actions by the ICANN Board concerning Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.06.08.16 – 2024.06.08.18

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

On 25 August 2022, the GNSO Council adopted an Initiation Request for a GGP to provide additional guidance for the development of the implementation elements of the Applicant Support Program, as recommended by the SubPro Final Report.

On 22 December 2023, the GNSO Council voted to approve, by a GNSO Supermajority, all nine final consensus recommendations contained in the Final Report of the GGP for Applicant Support.

On 18 January 2024, pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Council submitted its Recommendations Report 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. Under the ICANN Bylaws, a Supermajority vote by the GNSO Council for the GGP recommendations obligates the Board to adopt the recommendations unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds, the Board determines that the guidance is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. In this case, the GNSO Council approved all nine recommendations, exceeding the Supermajority threshold.

What is the proposal being considered?

In the GNSO Council's 16 August 2022 Initiation Request, it notes that the, "…New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Final Report envisioned some levels of substantive work taking place during the Implementation Review Team (IRT) phase of the work, after ICANN Board adoption of the recommendations. For instance, in Topic 17: Applicant Support, Implementation Guidance 17.5, the report suggests the creation of a dedicated IRT and it be charged 'with developing implementation elements of the Applicant Support Program.'…This dedicated IRT was to be charged with making substantive decisions on outreach activities and allocation of scarce resources (e.g., when there are more qualified applicants than available funds), among other activities."  Rather than establishing a dedicated IRT, the GNSO Council instead, in its Initiation Request, "committed to providing guidance on select topics where additional substantive work was envisaged by the recommendations and implementation guidance contained in the Final Report." The Council further determined "that the provision of guidance is best accomplished via the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP). This would accomplish the twin goals of pulling the work forward to avoid becoming the "tall pole" in the next round launch and providing sufficient time and the correct resources to devise an Applicant Support program that would expand the regional and language diversity of the new gTLD Program."

It is important to note that the GGP did not create new "Consensus Policy" recommendations including, but not limited to, any new contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a Policy Development Process (PDP) would need to be initiated).

The guidance recommendations produced by the GGP Team in its Final Report are in response to the set of six tasks contained in the GGP initiation request, which focus on the identification and prioritization of metrics, indicators of success, as well as financing the program when qualified applicants exceed allocated funds.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The GGP Team did not use external advisors to develop its recommendations. However, in accordance with the GNSO Guidance Process Manual, the team sought written input on the appropriate subject matter experts to join the working group from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee and GNSO Stakeholder Group / Constituency. The resulting suggestions for subject matter experts joined as members of the GGP Team and in particular, the Team's deliberations on Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 6 relating to metrics and funding.

In addition, to help support a smooth transition from guidance development to eventual implementation of GNSO Council-adopted and ICANN Board-approved GGP recommendations, the GGP Team was supported by early and ongoing engagement with ICANN org subject matter experts. A liaison from ICANN org's Global Domains and Strategy (GDS) regularly attended working group calls, providing input, and responding to questions where it was possible to do so in real time. The liaison acted as a conduit for GGP Team questions to ICANN org that required additional research or input. The liaison also facilitated early review of GGP Team draft outputs by ICANN org subject matter experts.

The GGP Team has followed all the necessary steps and processes required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Guidance Process Manual and the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including posting its Guidance Recommendation Initial Report for Public Comment (opening on 31 July 2023 and closing on 11 September 2023) and consideration of the public comments received thereto. Following a careful review of all public comments received from ten contributors as well as extensive discussions over suggestions for minor revisions to the guidance recommendations developed as a result of the public comment review, the GGP Team finalized its recommendations and delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council in December 2023.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The community provided feedback through Public Comments on the Initial Report. As documented in the Final Report, the GGP Team agreed to amend two of its preliminary guidance recommendations as a result of its review of the input it received through the Public Comment Forum. Specifically, following the public comment review, the GGP Team agreed to compromise language combining suggestions from Com Laude and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to specifically not exclude private sector entities as a balance to maintain the intent of the original Guidance Recommendation 1 while providing further clarity. In addition, for Guidance Recommendation 5, following the public comment review, the GGP Team agreed to language that, "This should be considered a floor, not a ceiling, and ICANN should strive to exceed this minimum." Furthermore, it agreed to add to the rationale that adequate resources should be made available if the number of qualified applicants exceeds or greatly exceeds the indicator of success, since the indicator of success should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling. The GGP Team agreed that this change captures the intent that ICANN should strive to exceed the minimum number while addressing the concern that a stretch goal could result in failure or a lack of adequate resources.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the following materials:

• The 16 August 2022 Initiation Request for the GGP for Applicant Support.

• The 31 July 2023 its Guidance Recommendation Initial Report of the GGP for Applicant Support.

• The 22 December 2023 GGP for Applicant Support Final Report and the resolution adopting the guidance recommendations

• The 18 January 2024 GNSO Council Recommendations Report.

• The 25 September 2023 Staff Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the Guidance Recommendation Initial Report of the GGP for Applicant Support.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

On 16 May 2024 ICANN org briefed the SubPro Board Caucus and the Board Finance Committee on the GGP for Applicant Support guidance recommendations and the Board found no significant factors.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Adopting the final recommendations will have a positive impact on ICANN. As noted above, the Council further determined "that the provision of guidance is best accomplished via the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP). This would accomplish the twin goals of pulling the work forward to avoid becoming the "tall pole" in the next round launch and providing sufficient time and the correct resources to devise an Applicant Support program that would expand the regional and language diversity of the new gTLD Program."  Specifically, the GGP's recommendations provide implementation guidance to the SubPro IRT on the identification and prioritization of metrics, including indicators of success and those relating to financing the program when qualified applicants exceed allocated funds. Guidance on these issues is expected to improve the implementation of the Applicant Support Program.

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

There are no fiscal or other impacts arising directly from the guidance recommendations as they are intended to only provide additional guidance to SubPro recommendations. In its Operational Design Assessment on the financial aspects of the Applicant Support Program, ICANN org noted, "The Applicant Support Program (ASP) will offer a reduction in ICANN fees related to the New gTLD Program to qualified applicants with demonstrated financial need.  ICANN org analysis has shown that the ASP-related policy recommendations and implementation guidance seem possible to implement. However, some outstanding questions and concerns remain with some aspects of the outputs, such as recommendations for financial support beyond an application fee reduction, the enlisting of external funding partners, and the use of a community-based panel for applicant evaluation. Other recommendations, such as improving communications, outreach, and engagement, offer clear direction."  It is these other recommendations that are addressed by the GGP guidance recommendations, hereby providing additional guidance to aid in the implementation of the SubPro recommendations.

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

There are no anticipated security, stability or resiliency issues as a result of this Board action.

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.

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?

The GGP Team has followed all the necessary steps and processes required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GGP Manual and the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including posting its GNSO Guidance Recommendation Initial Report for Public Comment on 31 July 2023 and consideration of the public comments received thereto.

Rationale for Resolutions 2024.06.08.19 – 2024.06.08.20

On 27 July 2023, ICANN org delivered to the Board a comprehensive implementation plan (Implementation Plan) containing a work plan that includes relevant information for infrastructure development, timelines, and anticipated resource requirements for implementation of the New gTLD Program: Next Round. Execution of the Implementation Plan has and will continue to require significant resources to develop and construct the essential program infrastructure, including IT systems, operational processes, and applicant procedures required to ensure the successful launch of the New gTLD Program Next Round and its continued operability.

As of April 2024, ICANN org has spent US$17 million of the previously Board-approved US$22 million for implementation activities and estimates the remaining US$5 million of approved funds will be utilized by 31 July 2024. For ICANN org to continue implementation work as directed by the Board, ICANN org has requested, and the Board Finance Committee (BFC) has recommended that the Board approve an additional US$23 million of funding through 31 March 2025.

The table below shows a breakdown of the estimated implementation costs from 1 July 2024 through 31 March 2025.

Next Round Implementation Costs	July 2024 – March 2025 in millions)	Notes
Personnel / Contractors	US$12.0	ICANN org staff costs for implementation, IT Systems, research, community engagement, applicant guidebooks
External Costs	US$5.7	Vendor costs: IT System Development, research, process design, Communications Outreach
ICANN org Shared Services & Support	US$2.3	Ongoing communal services that support the next round (IT support, office infrastructure, payroll, accounts payable, etc.)
Contingency	US$3.0	Placeholder for unknown and hard to predict costs
Total	US$23.0

The funding for this stage of implementation of the Next Round has been requested, and approved, through the New gTLD Program: 2012 Round Application Fees. The recommendation being approved is US$23 million for the next round and US$26 million preserved for ongoing 2012 round expenses.

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.

This action will not have a negative financial impact on ICANN, as funding is available from the New gTLD Program 2012 Round Application Fees. In addition, this action is intended to have a positive 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 2024.06.08.C01 – 2024.06.08.C06

Göran Marby stepped down as President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), effective 21 December 2022. While the Board undertook the extensive CEO search process, the Board appointed Sally Costerton, Special Advisor to the President and SVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement to serve as ICANN's Interim President and CEO, effective 21 December 2022.

To conduct the search for a new ICANN President and CEO, the Board established a CEO Search Committee consisting of eight Board members. Following community-wide and stakeholder Listening Sessions, this Committee developed the position description, subsequently vetted and accepted by the Board, for the ICANN President and CEO, which was posted on the ICANN website at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ceo-search-2023-en. The CEO Search Committee also facilitated ICANN's engagement of Perrett Laver, an international executive search firm, which conducted a detailed, thorough, global search for President and CEO candidates

The search for President and CEO candidates resulted in a diverse and rich pool of 100 candidates from over 20 countries across North and South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australasia. From this pool of candidates, 15 individuals were identified as part of a long list (four women and 11 men).

Further evaluation resulted in a short list of seven individuals (three women and four men), who were interviewed by the CEO Search Committee. The Search Committee narrowed the candidates to three finalists, two of whom the full Board interviewed.

After this lengthy interview and deliberation process, the ICANN Board selected Kurt Erik Lindqvist as ICANN's next President and CEO. The Board finds that Mr. Lindqvist possesses the leadership, political, technical, and management skills necessary to lead ICANN as its President and CEO.

As a California nonprofit public benefit corporation that is exempt from U.S. Federal income taxes because it is an organization described in §501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ICANN may not pay more than reasonable compensation for the President and CEO services rendered to ICANN.

In order to determine a reasonable compensation for Mr. Lindqvist, ICANN's Compensation Committee and the Board followed the process set forth in U.S. Treasury Regulation § 53.4958-6, which is intended to enable the Board to establish the presumption that the compensation to be paid to the new President and CEO is reasonable compensation for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. In particular, the Compensation Committee engaged the services of Mercer, an international expert compensation firm, to assist the Compensation Committee in compiling and analyzing appropriate data as to comparability with respect to the compensation for ICANN's President and CEO.

After several meetings with the Compensation Committee and the Board, the international expert compensation firm identified ranges of reasonable compensation. The Compensation Committee evaluated in detail the ranges identified as reasonable by the international expert compensation firm and made a recommendation to the Board for annual compensation package for the President and CEO. The Board agrees with the Compensation Committee's recommendation and has agreed to the compensation package in the amount and elements set forth in the resolution above.

This decision is in line with the public interest and within ICANN's mission to ensure that a qualified candidate is identified and selected to fulfill the Bylaws-mandated position of President and CEO.

This action will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, but that impact has been taken into consideration in the FY25 budget and will be considered in future budgets going forward.

This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment, although it should be noted that the Community was given several opportunities to help identify the skills important for ICANN's next President and CEO to possess.