Skip to main content

Minutes | Special Meeting of the Board

A Special Meeting of the ICANN's Board of Directors was held via teleconference on 10 January 2006 and was called to order at 1:08 P.M. PDT US.

Vinton G. Cerf (Chairman) presided over the entire meeting. The following other Board Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, Mouhamet Diop, Demi Getschko, Hagen Hultzsch, Joichi Ito, Veni Markovski, Michael Palage, Alejandro Pisanty, Hualin Qian, Njeri Rionge, Vanda Scartezini, Peter Dengate Thrush and Paul Twomey.

Liaisons present included Steve Crocker (SSAC), Daniel Dardailler (TLG), Roberto Gaetano (ALAC), Thomas Narten (IETF), Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi (GAC), and Suzanne Woolf (RSSAC). John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Board Secretary; Kurt Pritz, Vice President, Business Operations; and David Conrad, General Manager of IANA was also present.

No voting transcript was created for this meeting, as no matters were officially put on the voting transcript record.

Redelegation of .CX ( Christmas Island)

Following a detailed discussion of the proposed pending redelegation and a presentation by ICANN staff, Vint Cerf moved and Alejandro Pisanty seconded a motion for the following resolution:

Whereas, the .CX top-level domain was originally delegated on 24 April 1997.

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the redelegation of .CX to the Christmas Island Internet Administration Limited.

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interests of the local and global Internet communities.

Resolved (06.01), that the proposed redelegation of the .CX ccTLD to the Christmas Island Internet Administration Limited is approved.

The resolution was approved unanimously by voice vote V 15-0.

Extensions of Deadlines for gTLD Agreement Renewal Processes

ICANN Staff presented a proposal to allow the current group of gTLD registries that would be requiring renegotiation of their agreements to have the renewal proposals extended to allow for the current ongoing gTLD registry negotiations to continue in good faith. After a discussion of the pending contractual negotiations ICANN was having with Afilias, Public Interest Registry, Neustar and VeriSign the board discussed the impact of such discussion. Hagen Hultszch moved and Veni Markovski seconded the following proposed resolution:

Whereas, ICANN has been engaged in discussions with gTLD registry operators regarding renewal terms consistent with their existing registry contracts.

Whereas, these negotiations are intended to result in revised new registry agreements for those TLDs, including extended expiration dates and other revised terms to come into line with ICANN's other recent registry agreements.

Whereas, the existing agreements provide that each operator may submit a renewal proposal no later than eighteen months prior to the expiration date, and that ICANN would then have six months to review and discuss the renewal proposal.

Whereas, it may be beneficial for all parties involved to allow for extensions of the deadline for submitting a renewal proposal so that the registry operators will not have to expend resources on developing comprehensive renewal proposals while discussions with ICANN on replacement registry agreements are continuing.

Resolved (06.02), the President and the General Counsel are authorized to continue negotiations with any such registry operator (s) in accordance with existing contractual terms, and are authorized to extend the relevant renewal process deadlines as necessary and appropriate for up to six full months, while discussions continue.

The Motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote V 15-0.

Other Business

Additionally, there was a detailed discussion regarding the proposed re-delegation of .UA which was held over until additional information could be collected by the ICANN staff dealing with the IANA issues.

The Conflicts Committee led by Susan Crawford presented a proposed COI questionnaire to the board and it was generally agreed that individual board members would use this questionnaire to set out conflicts uniformly and thoroughly.

The other remaining issues were put off until the next meeting.

The Meeting was adjourned at 3:03 PM.

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"""" is not an IDN."