Skip to main content
Resources

Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes

INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS

A meeting of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was held on Monday, 4 June 2001, at the Stockholm International Fairs building in Stockholm, Sweden.

The following Directors of ICANN were present: Vint Cerf (chairman), Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, Robert Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Philip Davidson, Ken Fockler, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, M. Stuart Lynn, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, Helmut Schink, and Linda S. Wilson.

Also present at the meeting were Louis Touton, ICANN's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary; Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's Chief Financial Officer; and Joe Sims, of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. Patrik Fältström, a participant in the IETF, also spoke briefly at the meeting. The meeting was open to the public.

The chairman, Vint Cerf, called the meeting to order at 07:10 UTC (9:10 am local time), following an ICANN Public Forum concerning the work of the At-Large Study Committee.

Minutes

A vote was taken to approve minutes of the previous meeting. In subsequent discussion, Board members expressed confusion regarding which minutes were being considered, and the vote was nullified.

Approval of 2001-2002 Budget

At the Public Forum the day before the Board meeting, Dr. Lynn had given a presentation concerning his proposed budget for the 2001-2003 fiscal year. At its meeting, the Board discussed that presentation.

Mr. Mueller-Magun inquired about whether funds could later be allocated from the budget to support At-Large voting, even if they are not reflected in the budget at the time it is adopted. Dr. Lynn responded that the Board is able to revise the budget during the year provided sufficient funds are available.

Mr. Kraaijenbrink moved, with Mr. Schink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:

[1] Whereas, ICANN's bylaws require that the President shall prepare and submit to the Board a proposed annual budget of the Corporation for the next fiscal year;

[2] Whereas, the President, with the assistance of the Finance Committee and the Budget Advisory Group, has followed an open and consultative process in developing the budget, including posting of a preliminary budget on 19 February 2001, posting of a proposed budget on 14 May 2001, submission of comments through an on-line comment forum, and a budget presentation and discussion at the ICANN Public Forum in Stockholm on 3 June 2001;

[3] Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the comments received;

[4] Whereas, the President has submitted to the Board a proposed budget prepared through that consultative process for FY01-02, commencing 1 July 2001 (the "Proposed Budget");

[5] Whereas, the Board has reviewed the Proposed Budget and has found that its adoption is in the best interest of the Corporation;

[6] Resolved that the Proposed Budget is hereby adopted as the annual budget of the Corporation for the fiscal year beginning 1 July 2001 (as adopted, the "Budget"); and

[7] Further resolved that the President is authorized and directed to implement and carry out the Budget and is directed to inform the Board of material variances from the Budget.

Mr. Auerbach stated his concern that ICANN is growing too large, when compared with its responsibilities. Mr. Cohen disagreed.

Dr. Wilson noted that the Finance Committee had formally recommended to the Board the adoption of the budget. After some discussion, a friendly amendment was made to clause [2] to reflect this formal endorsement. Mr. Katoh stated his view that the budget was very modest in size.

A vote was then taken on the resolutions, which as amended read:

Whereas, ICANN's bylaws require that the President shall prepare and submit to the Board a proposed annual budget of the Corporation for the next fiscal year;

Whereas, the President, with the endorsement of the Finance Committee and with the assistance of the Budget Advisory Group, has followed an open and consultative process in developing the budget, including posting of a preliminary budget on 19 February 2001, posting of a proposed budget on 14 May 2001, submission of comments through an on-line comment forum, and a budget presentation and discussion at the ICANN Public Forum in Stockholm on 3 June 2001;

Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the comments received;

Whereas, the President has submitted to the Board a proposed budget prepared through that consultative process for FY01-02, commencing 1 July 2001 (the "Proposed Budget");

Whereas, the Board has reviewed the Proposed Budget and has found that its adoption is in the best interest of the Corporation;

Resolved [01.63] that the Proposed Budget is hereby adopted as the annual budget of the Corporation for the fiscal year beginning 1 July 2001 (as adopted, the "Budget"); and

Further resolved [01.64] that the President is authorized and directed to implement and carry out the Budget and is directed to inform the Board of material variances from the Budget.

The resolutions were adopted by a 16-1-1 vote, with Mr. Auerbach voting against and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.

Revision of Registrar Application and Accreditation Fees

Dr. Lynn moved, with Mr. Kraaijenbrink's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:

[1] Whereas, in resolution 99.16 the Board approved the charging of an application of US$1000 fee for those seeking to be accredited as registrars in the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains and a US$ 5000 fixed component of the accreditation fee for those registrars;

[2] Whereas, on 17 April 2001 ICANN posted on its web site a proposal to change those registrar application fees and annual registrar fixed accreditation fees, with a detailed explanation of the nature of the change being proposed and the reasons for it;

[3] Whereas, since then an online public comment forum for comments on the proposal, at which members of the public can see the comments of others and reply to them;

[4] Whereas, on 3 June 2001 a public forum was held in Stockholm at which the proposed fees were discussed;

[5] Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the comments received;

[6] Resolved that the fee for making an application to be accredited by ICANN as a registrar shall be US$ 2500, without regard to the number of top-level domains for which accreditation is sought, for applications submitted after 1 July 2001; and

[7] Resolved that the fixed fee for accreditation for registrars accredited under agreements signed after 17 May 2001 shall be US$4,000 annually for the first top-level domain in which they are accredited to perform registrar services and US$500 for each additional top-level domain.

In response to a question by Mr. Mueller-Maguhn concerning the possibility of changing registrar fees for .org, Mr. Touton explained that the Board could, by complying with the procedures for fee revisions in the bylaws, change fees at any time.

Mr. Kraaijenbrink proposed that clause [6] be revised to state that the new fees applied to applications submitted "on or after 1 July 2001". This amendment was accepted by consensus.

Responding to a question by Mr. Auerbach, Dr. Lynn noted that the proposed new fees should not prevent existing registrars from continuing their businesses because it did not increase yearly accreditation fees to any registrar for the same number of TLDs. A vote was then taken on the resolutions, which as amended read:

Whereas, in resolution 99.16 the Board approved the charging of an application of US$1000 fee for those seeking to be accredited as registrars in the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains and a US$ 5000 fixed component of the accreditation fee for those registrars;

Whereas, on 17 April 2001 ICANN posted on its web site a proposal to change those registrar application fees and annual registrar fixed accreditation fees, with a detailed explanation of the nature of the change being proposed and the reasons for it;

Whereas, since then an online public comment forum for comments on the proposal, at which members of the public can see the comments of others and reply to them;

Whereas, on 3 June 2001 a public forum was held in Stockholm at which the proposed fees were discussed;

Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the comments received;

Resolved [01.65] that the fee for making an application to be accredited by ICANN as a registrar shall be US$ 2500, without regard to the number of top-level domains for which accreditation is sought, for applications submitted on or after 1 July 2001; and

Resolved [01.66] that the fixed fee for accreditation for registrars accredited under agreements signed after 17 May 2001 shall be US$4,000 annually for the first top-level domain in which they are accredited to perform registrar services and US$500 for each additional top-level domain.

The resolutions were adopted by a 18-0-0 vote.

Emerging Regional Internet Registries

Dr. Cerf introduced the topic of criteria for recognition of new Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Dr. Wilson inquired how the resolution's authorization of the President to devote sufficient resources to evaluate applications related to the budget resolutions. Dr. Cerf responded that the authorization to devote resources was necessarily constrained by budgetary limitations.

Mr. Fockler moved, with Dr. Quaynor's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:

[1] Whereas, the Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding ASO-MOU provides that ICANN will develop requirements and policies for the approval of additional Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and provides general guidance for minimum requirements;

[2] Whereas, on 24 April 2001, after extensive public consultation, the Address Council submitted to the Board proposed Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries as a more specific statement of the essential preconditions for the approval of new RIRs, as a statement of the minimum guidelines needed when evaluating applications for recognition of new RIRs;

[3] Whereas, the Address Council has also recommended that the Board authorize the ICANN staff to receive and evaluate applications for the recognition of new RIRs, using the criteria as a statement of minimum requirements;

[4] Whereas, the Address Council proposals have been posted on the ICANN web site and discussed on ICANN's web-based public forum and at the ICANN Public Forum held in Stockholm, Sweden, on 3 June 2001;

It is therefore

[5] Resolved that the Board accepts the "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries" recommended by the Address Council as a statement of essential requirements, in supplementation to section 9 of the ASO-MOU, and acknowledges it as a framework for consideration of applications for recognition of new RIRs;

[6] Further resolved that the President is authorized to establish procedures and standards for the receipt of applications for recognition of new RIRs and for the evaluation of those applications, according to section 9 of the ASO-MOU and consistent with the minimum requirements set forth in the Criteria;

[7] Further resolved that the President is authorized to devote sufficient resources of the Corporation to the timely evaluation of any applications according to those procedures and standards; and

[8] Further resolved that the President is directed to report periodically on any applications received and to present to the Board recommendations on those applications, with final action on applications being subject to Board approval.

Dr. Campos raised his concern that clause [6] could be misinterpreted to allow the President to create additional criteria for recognition. Dr. Lynn stated his understanding that clause [6] was requesting the President to give clarity to the steps required in the application process. He noted that this should include a clear transition plan to smooth the introduction of new RIRs. Dr. Campos pointed out that there should be a clear understanding that this not authorize creation of new criteria for recognition of new RIRs. Dr. Pisanty stressed that any evaluation of applications was subject under clause [8] to Board review at the conclusion of the process. Mr. Abril i Abril, Dr. Blokzijl, and Mr. Fockler also concurred that clause [6] envisioned creation of application procedures and did not allow the President to create additional criteria. After discussion, "minimum" was removed from clause [6] by consensus.

Mr. Auerbach noted his concern that consumers should be given an enhanced involvement in the address-allocation system.

A vote was then taken on the resolutions, which as amended read:

Whereas, the Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding ASO-MOU provides that ICANN will develop requirements and policies for the approval of additional Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and provides general guidance for minimum requirements;

Whereas, on 24 April 2001, after extensive public consultation, the Address Council submitted to the Board proposed Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries as a more specific statement of the essential preconditions for the approval of new RIRs, as a statement of the minimum guidelines needed when evaluating applications for recognition of new RIRs;

Whereas, the Address Council has also recommended that the Board authorize the ICANN staff to receive and evaluate applications for the recognition of new RIRs, using the criteria as a statement of minimum requirements;

Whereas, the Address Council proposals have been posted on the ICANN web site and discussed on ICANN's web-based public forum and at the ICANN Public Forum held in Stockholm, Sweden, on 3 June 2001;

It is therefore

Resolved [01.67] that the Board accepts the "Criteria for the Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries" recommended by the Address Council as a statement of essential requirements, in supplementation to section 9 of the ASO-MOU, and acknowledges it as a framework for consideration of applications for recognition of new RIRs;

Further resolved [01.68] that the President is authorized to establish procedures and standards for the receipt of applications for recognition of new RIRs and for the evaluation of those applications, according to section 9 of the ASO-MOU and consistent with the requirements set forth in the Criteria;

Further resolved [01.69] that the President is authorized to devote sufficient resources of the Corporation to the timely evaluation of any applications according to those procedures and standards; and

Further resolved [01.70] that the President is directed to report periodically on any applications received and to present to the Board recommendations on those applications, with final action on applications being subject to Board approval.

The resolutions were adopted by a 18-0-0 vote.

Referral of .org Issues to DNSO

Mr. Schink moved, with Mr. Abril i Abril's second, that the Board adopt the following resolutions:

[1] Whereas, on 25 May 2001 ICANN entered into a new registry agreement with VeriSign, Inc. for the .org top-level domain;

[2] Whereas, under that agreement VeriSign's operation of the .org top-level domain will terminate on 31 December 2002, at which time the operation will be turned over to an entity designated by ICANN;

[3] Whereas, before the transition to operation of the .org top-level domain by the new entity can occur, it will be necessary to designate or establish an appropriate entity, to fashion its legal relationship with ICANN, to develop any necessary policies for the entity's operation, and to allow the entity to set up its business operations;

[4] Whereas, it is the Board's goal that these activities be completed in an orderly manner and in time to permit transfer of operational responsibilities for .org on the contracted schedule;

[5] Whereas, meeting this goal will require early planning and policy development;

[6] Whereas, the Board considers that the designation of a successor registry for the .org top-level domain involves policy issues concerning the domain-name system that should be referred to the Domain Name Supporting Organization for its consideration and recommendations;

[7] Whereas, under Subsection 5.1.4 of the current .org registry agreement VeriSign must contribute a US$ 5,000,000 endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of a non-profit entity, if one is designated by ICANN as successor operator;

[8] Whereas, the Board notes that the availability of this endowment should be considered in developing policy for the future operation of the .org top-level domain;

[9] Whereas, the Board urges that consideration be given to the positive effects on stability of assuring the ability of registrants who are not non-commercial to continue their registrations;

[10] Resolved that the Board refers to the Names Council for its consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, including at least:

(a) whether to designate an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to create a new entity;

(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;

(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;

(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and

(e) policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain (to the extent they are not to be established by the entity).

 

[11] Further resolved that the Names Council is requested to provide a report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution (clause [10]), including any policy recommendations it has developed, no later than 12 October 2001; and

[12] Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for public comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 2001.

Mr. Abril i Abril stated his view that the policies applicable to .org should not be changed, at least in an abrupt way. Mr. Touton noted that clause [9] stressed the need for assuring the ability of registrants that are not non-commercial to continue their registrations. After some discussion, the Board agreed to simplify clause [9] to simply refer to the allowance of continued registrations by .org registrants generally.

Mr. Fockler suggested that clause [10] paragraph (a) be revised to read "whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new entity". This amendment was accepted by consensus.

A vote was then taken on the resolutions, which as amended read:

Whereas, on 25 May 2001 ICANN entered into a new registry agreement with VeriSign, Inc. for the .org top-level domain;

Whereas, under that agreement VeriSign's operation of the .org top-level domain will terminate on 31 December 2002, at which time the operation will be turned over to an entity designated by ICANN;

Whereas, before the transition to operation of the .org top-level domain by the new entity can occur, it will be necessary to designate or establish an appropriate entity, to fashion its legal relationship with ICANN, to develop any necessary policies for the entity's operation, and to allow the entity to set up its business operations;

Whereas, it is the Board's goal that these activities be completed in an orderly manner and in time to permit transfer of operational responsibilities for .org on the contracted schedule;

Whereas, meeting this goal will require early planning and policy development;

Whereas, the Board considers that the designation of a successor registry for the .org top-level domain involves policy issues concerning the domain-name system that should be referred to the Domain Name Supporting Organization for its consideration and recommendations;

Whereas, under Subsection 5.1.4 of the current .org registry agreement VeriSign must contribute a US$ 5,000,000 endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of a non-profit entity, if one is designated by ICANN as successor operator;

Whereas, the Board notes that the availability of this endowment should be considered in developing policy for the future operation of the .org top-level domain;

Whereas, the Board urges that consideration be given to the positive effects on stability of assuring the ability of present registrants to continue their registrations;

Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council for its consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, including at least:

(a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new entity;

(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;

(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;

(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and

(e) policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain (to the extent they are not to be established by the entity).

Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested to provide a report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution 01.71, including any policy recommendations it has developed, no later than 12 October 2001; and

Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for public comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 2001.

The resolutions were adopted by a 17-0-1 vote, with Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.

Process for Monitoring and Evaluation of New TLD Program

Dr. Kyong moved, with Dr. Blokzijl's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:

Whereas, in resolution 01.60, the Board directed "the President to prepare and present to the Board at its Stockholm meeting in June 2001 a proposal to form a committee to recommend processes for monitoring the implementation of the new TLDs and evaluating the new TLD program, including any ongoing adjustments of agreements with operators or sponsors of new TLDs;"

Whereas, the President has recommended to the Board the formation of a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force chaired by the President and consisting of members selected with the advice of the Names and Protocol Councils and the Chairs of the IETF, IAB, and ICANN DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee;

Resolved [01.74], the Board directs the President to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force, for the purpose of recommending to the Board and the broader Internet community, by means of a report to be discussed at ICANN's Montevideo meeting in September 2001:

(a) a plan for monitoring the introduction of new TLDs and for evaluating their performance and their impact on the performance of the DNS. This assessment should focus in technical, business, and legal perspectives and rely on data gathered as part of the contractual arrangements with the new TLDs as well as other data inputs that can be readily secured; and

(b) a schedule on which a plan should be executed.

A discussion ensued regarding the task of evaluating the already-authorized new TLDs being introduced and its implications on the schedule for authorization of additional TLDs. Board members gave varying views regarding likely schedules for the evaluation. Dr. Lynn noted that none of the new TLDs had yet started, so that schedules were difficult to predict. In response to Mr. Schink's comment, it was clarified that the evaluation was not intended to apply to ccTLDs. In response to a question from Mr. Mueller-Maguhn concerning possible conflicts of interest, Dr. Lynn stated that he did not intend to appoint representatives of the registries being evaluated to the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force.

A vote was taken, and the resolution was adopted by a 18-0-0 vote.

Format for ICANN Meetings

The Board discussed a variety of matters not involving formal Board action.

Dr. Cerf noted that many people had expressed the desire for a changed meeting format that would allow additional time for public comment and Board discussions. He suggested that the Meetings Committee should consider possible improvements to the meeting format. Mr. Kraaijenbrink stated he felt that four meetings annually are useful, to enhance outreach to the global Internet community. Mr. Abril i Abril advocated only three meetings each year because having four meetings does not allow a sufficient interval for proper preparation. He suggested that additional outreach mechanisms be considered. Mr. Cohen and Dr. Lynn concurred that the format of the meetings should be reviewed with the goal of improving the quality of interchange and outreach at the meetings. Dr. Lynn recommended that there be three meetings each year of five days, rather than four shorter meetings. Dr. Wilson expressed the desire to have a portion of the meeting time devoted to education of the Board and community. Mr. Auerbach suggested that an effective way be found to shift from public comment to public discussion. Dr. Cerf expressed the desire for more in-depth examinations of the issues, with greater preparation.

A break was taken.

ccTLD Constituency Communiqué

Mr. Abril i Abril raised the topic of the ccTLD constituency communiqué announcing its withdrawal from the DNSO and desire to form a separate supporting organization. He expressed his wish for the Board to work with the ccTLD constituency to develop a more detailed analysis of the problems and solutions to them. Other Directors endorsed the desire to follow the situation, but stated that allowing development by the ccTLD constituency may be the best course, although interactions by individual Board members would be a positive step. Mr. Auerbach stated his desire for a broader planning process regarding how to consider requests for additional constituencies.

Promoting At-Large Participation

The Board discussed possible measures to enhance community discussion of At-Large issues. Various Board members discussed the possibility of using the e-mail address list developed during the 2000 online voting process. The list had been used by the At-Large Study Committee once to invite participation in its study process, including subscription to its mailing list. At the end of the discussion, the consensus emerged to proceed by enhancing mechanisms onthe ICANN web site to direct interested persons to the various forums for discussion of At-Large issues.

Individual Domain-Name Holders Constituency in DNSO

Discussing a request received the day before from the DNSO General Assembly for creation of a DNSO constituency for individual domain-name holders, Mr. Cohen expressed the desire to allow the At-Large Study Committee to continue its analysis of such restructuring issues before action by the Board. Mr. Auerbach noted the distinction between the interests of general Internet users (for which At-Large would be relevant) and individuals who have registered domain names (for which a DNSO constituency would be relevant). Mr. McLaughlin noted that the bylaws establish a procedure, involving posting and public comment, for the Board's consideration of requests to create additional constituencies within the DNSO. Several Board members noted that no specific proposal (accompanied by bylaws, discussion of impacts, etc.) had been received, making it impractical for the Board to act. The Board's sentiment was that it was receptive to proposals for creation of an additional DNSO constituency for individual domain-name holders, but that a specific proposal following the procedures in the bylaws would be necessary.

Internationalized Domain Names

Regarding internationalized domain names (IDNs), Mr. Abril i Abril noted that the Names Council had recommended that ICANN encourage ccTLD and gTLD registries to delay the deployment of resolution of IDNs until August 2001, when it was anticipated that the IETF would agree upon a standard. Several Board members expressed skepticism that IDN standardization and deployment would occur on such a rapid schedule. Dr. Blokzijl and Mr. Auerbach pointed out that experimental deployments can be helpful to the IETF's standardization process, and that ICANN should encourage those interested in IDNs to follow and participate in the IETF process. In response to a question from the Board, Patrik Fältström stated that, while it is possible that the IETF working group will complete its work in August 2001, it is also possible that it will be delayed. He also stated that deployment could require significant additional time. Some Board members noted that the deployment of IDN resolution is within ICANN's purview only in limited portions of the DNS. In response to a question from Mr. Katoh, Mr. Touton that, although ICANN had contractual means of promoting restraint by gTLD operators, its relationships with ccTLDs limited it to moral persuasion. Dr. Cerf noted that ICANN's ability to influence at lower levels in both ccTLDs and gTLDs was also limited to persuasion. Mr. Katoh stated that, even where ICANN is not able to enforce requirements, it can inform the community about them. Mr. Davidson questioned whether an ICANN statement encouraging delay would be fruitful, but endorsed encouraging all registries (whether or not under ICANN contract) to pursue the ultimate goal of complying with whatever IETF standard ultimately emerges. The majority of the Board expressed the sentiment that no formal action is appropriate at this time, but that the Board should seek to encourage enhanced communication and information interchange.

During the above discussion, Dr. Murai left the meeting.

Alternate Roots

Mr. Mueller-Maguhn raised the topic of how ICANN, in its management of the traditional root, should take account of TLDs in alternate DNS roots. Dr. Cerf stated his view that ICANN must leave open the possibility of new TLDs being added to the traditional root even though TLDs with the same string are included in alternative roots. Mr. Auerbach stated that collisions with TLDs in alternate roots should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Lynn noted that his recent discussion draft, entitled "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS", stated that the existing policy derived from the White Paper and other sources was that decisions on inclusion of TLDs in the traditional roots should not be affected in any way by the presence of those strings as TLDs in alternate roots. Mr. Kraaijenbrink stated a similar position. Mr. Mueller-Maguhn urged the Board to work toward an approach that coexists with, rather than ignores, alternate roots. Mr. Abril i Abril stated that the Board has a duty to preserve a globally unique DNS space; that ICANN's duty is to introduce competition, which requires that users not be dependent on a particular service provider; that the paper published by Stuart Lynn was an appropriate statement of the current policy, subject to revision through the ICANN policy-development process; and that operations in alternate roots must not create rights to TLDs within the traditional root. Mr Cohen noted that ICANN's obligation to introduce domains to the DNS root in a stable and fair way precluded recognition based on activities in alternate roots, which have not been authorized through the ICANN process. Dr. Pisanty expressed support for the approach of Dr. Lynn's paper. Mr. Auerbach affirmed that the consequences predicted by some of collisions arising from alternate roots do exist, and that the relevant question is how those collisions are to be resolved. Dr. Lynn stated his interpretation that the Board encouraged his revising his paper to address comments and post it. Dr. Cerf noted the apparent consensus on that interpretation.

.name E-mail Service

Mr. Abril i Abril expressed his concern over the proposal of Global Name Registry to offer e-mail forwarding at the second level in .name. He noted that had not been stated in its original proposal and that he was concerned it has monopolistic consequences. Further discussion of this was deferred until a more detailed background was available.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:44 UTC (12:44 pm local time).

_______________________
Louis Touton
Secretary

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."