Source: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2018-11-06-en
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:08:30+00:00

Document:
A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held telephonically on 6 November 2018 at 22:00 UTC.
In addition to the Chair, the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Becky Burr, Maarten Botterman, Sarah Deutsch, Chris Disspain (Vice Chair), Ron da Silva, Avri Doria, Rafael Lito Ibarra, Danko Jevtovic, Khaled Koubaa, Akinori Maemura, Göran Marby (President and CEO), Nigel Roberts, León Sanchez, Matthew Shears, and Tripti Sinha.
The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Harald Alverstrand (IETF Liaison), Manal Ismail (GAC Liaison), and Merike Kaeo (SSAC Liaison).
The following Board Liaisons sent their apologies: Kaveh Ranjbar (RSSAC Liaison).
The following ICANN Executives and Staff participated in all or part of the meeting: Susanna Bennett (Chief Operating Officer), Michelle Bright (Board Content Coordination Director), Franco Carrasco (Board Operations Specialist), Sally Cohen (SVP, Global Communications), Samantha Eisner (Deputy General Counsel), Casandra Furey (Associate General Counsel), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Aaron Jimenez (Board Operations Senior Coordinator), Tarek Kamel (Sr. Advisor to President & SVP, Government and IGO Engagement), Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Director, Board Operations), Elizabeth Le (Associate General Counsel), Cyrus Namazi (Vice President, Domain Name Services & Industry Engagement, Global Domains Division), David Olive (Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support), Cassia Oliveira (Sr. Manager, Office of the CEO), Wendy Profit (Senior Manager, Board Operations), Erika Randall (Associate General Counsel), Lisa Saulino (Board Operations, Senior Coordinator), Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel), and Theresa Swinehart (Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives).
Resolved (2018.11.06.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 16 September and 3 October 2018 Meetings of the ICANN Board.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2018.11.06.01. The Resolution carried.
The Vice Chair introduced the agenda item. Liz Le, Associate General Counsel, provided a summary of Request 18-8, which was filed by Afilias Domains No .3 Ltd. (Afilias) seeking reconsideration of ICANN org's response to the Afilias' request for documents, pursuant to ICANN's Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), relating to the .WEB contention set. Afilias claims that by declining to produce certain documents that are responsive to the DIDP request, ICANN org violated the DIDP and its core values and commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness. Request 18-8 has been evaluated by the BAMC. The BAMC recommended that Request 18-8 be denied because ICANN org adhered to established policies and procedures in the DIDP Response and ICANN org did not violate its commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness. Afilias did not submit a rebuttal to the BAMC's Recommendation within the allotted time under Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of the Bylaws.
The Board engaged in a discussion regarding the balancing of the harm in disclosing the requested documents that have not already been published and the benefit in disclosure that ICANN org undertook in responding to the DIDP request. The Board noted that the Bylaws and the DIDP, which was established in consultation with the community, take into consideration circumstances in which ICANN's Core Values will conflict with one another. Neither the DIDP nor ICANN's commitments and Core Values obligates ICANN org to make public every document public when there are competing concerns regarding appropriateness of disclosure. As part of its commitment to transparency and accountability in responding to the items requested in the DIDP, ICANN org considered the public interest of disclosing the responsive documents, including ICANN org's commitment to promote competition in the DNS, against the harm that may be caused by such disclosure. As noted in the BAMC's Recommendation and in Rationale below, where the potential harm in disclosure outweighs the public interest, ICANN org may exercise its discretion to withhold materials under these circumstances without violating its commitment to promoting competition, which is what ICANN org did in the DIDP Response.
Whereas, Afilias Domains No. 3 Ltd. (Requestor) submitted Reconsideration Request 18-8 seeking reconsideration of ICANN organization's response to the Requestor's request for documents, pursuant to ICANN's Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP), relating to the .WEB contention set.
Whereas, the Requestor claims that in declining to produce certain requested documents in the DIDP Response, ICANN org violated the DIDP and its Core Values and commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness.
Whereas, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) previously determined that Request 18-8 is sufficiently stated and sent the Request to the Ombudsman for review and consideration in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.2(j) and (k) of the ICANN Bylaws.
Whereas, the BAMC carefully considered the merits of Request 18-8 and all relevant materials and recommended that Request 18-8 be denied because ICANN org adhered to established policies and procedures in the DIDP Response; and ICANN org did not violate its commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness.
Whereas, the Requestor did not file a rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation on Request 18-8 within the allotted time under Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of the Bylaws.
Resolved (2018.11.06.02), the Board adopts the BAMC Recommendation on Request 18-8 [PDF, 211 KB].
Fifteen Directors voted in favor of Resolution 2018.11.06.02. Tripti Sinha abstained. The Resolution carried.
The full factual background is set forth in the BAMC Recommendation on Request 18-8 [PDF, 211 KB] (BAMC Recommendation), which the Board has reviewed and considered, and which is incorporated here.
On 28 August 2018, the BAMC evaluated Request 18-8 and all relevant materials and recommended that the Board deny Request 18-8 because ICANN org adhered to established policies and procedures in the DIDP Response; and ICANN org did not violate its commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness.
Pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2(q), the Requestor has 15 days from the receipt of the BAMC's Recommendation on Request 18-8 to submit a rebuttal. No rebuttal was filed by the 12 September 2018 deadline and none has been received to date.
The Board has carefully considered the BAMC's Recommendation [PDF, 211 KB] and all relevant materials related to Request 18-8, and the Board agrees with the BAMC's Recommendation [PDF, 211 KB].
Whether ICANN org complied with its Core Values and commitments established in the Bylaws concerning transparency and openness.
The Response to the DIDP Request Complies with Applicable Policies and Procedures.
The BAMC concluded, and the Board agrees, that ICANN org adhered to established policy and procedure in finding that the harm in disclosing the requested that are subject to the Nondisclosure Conditions outweighs the public's interest in disclosing the information.
As an initial matter, the Board agrees with the BAMC's determination that the Requestor's proposal to enter into a confidentiality agreement to protect the information contained in the requested materials does not support reconsideration. Indeed, the concept of a confidentiality agreement for the disclosure of documents through the DIDP runs afoul of the DIDP itself, which is to make public documents concerning ICANN org's operations unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.6 Moreover, the Requestor's proposal asks ICANN org to treat the Requestor differently than other requestors, and to act in a manner that is contrary to what is set forth in the DIDP Response Process, which could be in contravention of ICANN's Bylaws. Further, by proposing that the documents be made available only to the Requestor's outside counsel via a "confidentiality agreement," it appears that the Requestor concedes that the requested information is not appropriate for public disclosure.
With respect to the allegations set forth in Request 18-8 regarding Verisign's intentions and conduct in connection with the .WEB gTLD, the Board agrees with the BAMC's conclusion that the Requestor fails to provide any evidence or other support for its assertions. The Board further agrees that the Requestor fails to explain how its unsubstantiated claims concerning Verisign's alleged conduct demonstrate that ICANN org violated a policy or procedure when it responded to the Requestor's DIDP Request.
The Board agrees with the BAMC's determination that the DIDP Response did not violate ICANN org's commitments and Core Values. Neither the DIDP nor ICANN's commitments and Core Values supporting transparency and accountability obligates ICANN org to make public every document in its possession. As noted above, the DIDP sets forth Nondisclosure Conditions for which other commitments or Core Values may compete or conflict with the transparency commitment. These Nondisclosure Conditions represent areas, vetted through public comment, that the community has agreed are presumed not to be appropriate for public disclosure. The public interest balancing test in turn allows ICANN org to determine whether or not, under the specific circumstances, its commitment to transparency outweighs its other commitments and Core Values. Accordingly, without contravening its commitment to transparency, ICANN org may appropriately exercise its discretion, pursuant to the DIDP, to determine that certain documents are not appropriate for disclosure.
The BAMC concluded, and the Board agrees, that ICANN org set forth the basis for its determination in each instance of nondisclosure in the DIDP Response, which are pre-defined in the DIDP; the Nondisclosure Conditions that ICANN identified, by definition, set forth compelling reasons for not disclosing the materials. (See BAMC Recommendation [PDF, 211 KB], Pgs. 22-23.) It is entirely within ICANN org's discretion to make this finding, and ICANN org may conclude as much without contravening its commitment to transparency. Accordingly, the Requestor's generalized invocations of ICANN org's commitments to transparency and openness do not support reconsideration.
Becky Burr introduced the agenda item and provided a brief summary of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (Temporary Specification), which establishes temporary requirements to allow ICANN and gTLD registry operators and registrars to continue to comply with existing ICANN contractual requirements and community developed policies concerning gTLD registration data including WHOIS in light of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. The procedure by which the Board adopted the Temporary Specification requires that "[i]f the period of time for which the Temporary Policy is adopted exceeds ninety (90) calendar days, the Board shall reaffirm its temporary adoption every ninety (90) calendar days for a total period not to exceed one (1) year, in order to maintain such Temporary Policy in effect until such time as it becomes a Consensus Policy." As the conditions giving rise to the need for the Temporary Specification still remain, the Board is being asked to reaffirm the Temporary Specification.
Whereas, on 21 August 2018, the Board reaffirmed the adoption of the Temporary Specification to be effective for an additional 90-day period beginning on 23 August 2018.
The Temporary Specification will be effective for an additional 90-day period beginning 21 November 2018.
Resolved (2018.11.06.04), the Board reaffirms the Advisory Statement Concerning Adoption of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data [PDF, 510 KB], which sets forth its detailed explanation of its reasons for adopting the Temporary Specification and why the Board believes such Temporary Specification should receive the consensus support of Internet stakeholders.
All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolutions 2018.11.06.03 and 2018.11.06.04. The Resolutions carried.
On 21 August 2018, the Board reaffirmed the Temporary Specification for an additional 90-day period beginning 23 August 2018.
Today, the Board is taking action to reconfirm the Temporary Specification for an additional 90 days as the temporary requirements continue to be justified in order to maintain the stability or security of registry services, registrar services or the DNS. When adopting the Temporary Specification, the Board provided an Advisory Statement [PDF, 510 KB] to provide a detailed explanation of its reasons for adopting the Temporary Specification and why the Board believes such Temporary Specification should receive the consensus support of Internet stakeholders. The Board reaffirms the Advisory Statement, which is incorporated by reference into the rationale to the Board's resolutions.
As required when a temporary policy or specification is adopted, the Board took action to implement the consensus policy development process and consulted with the GNSO Council on potential paths forward for considering the development of a consensus policy on the issues within the Temporary Specification. The consensus policy development process must be concluded in a one-year time period. The Board takes note that the GNSO Council launched an Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification, and the Working Group is continuing with its deliberations to develop proposed policy recommendations. The Board will continue to engage with the GNSO Council on this matter and reconfirms its commitment to provide the necessary support to the work of the Expedited Policy Development Process to meet the deadline (see 7 August 2018 letter from Cherine Chalaby to GNSO Council Chair: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-forrest-et-al-07aug18-en.pdf [PDF, 269 KB]).
1 Reconsideration Request 18-8, § 6, at Pg. 9-11. While the Requestor summarily concludes that the Nondisclosure Conditions were "unreasonably and illegitimately appl[ied]" (see Reconsideration Request 18-8, § 6, Pg. 8), the Requestor does not explain how that is so. Without more, the Requestor's unsupported assertions do not support reconsideration.
2 See DIDP Response Process, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-process-29oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 59 KB].
3 Id. at Pg. 14.
4 Reconsideration Request 18-8, § 6, at Pgs. 8-11.
5 Reconsideration Request 18-8, § 6, Pg. 9.
7 ICANN Bylaws, 18 June 2018, Art. I, § 1.2(c).
8 Amazon EU S.A.R.L. v. ICANN, ICDR Case No. 01-16-000-7056, Procedural Order (7 June 2017), at Pg. 3, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-procedural-order-3-07jun17-en.pdf [PDF, 119 KB].
9 ICANN Bylaws, 18 June 2018, Art. 1, § 1.2(c).

References: § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 1
 v. 
 Art. 1
 § 1