Skip to main content
Resources

Minutes | Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) Meeting

Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) Attendees: Becky Burr, Sarah Deutsch, Chris Disspain (Chair), Léon Sanchez, and Mike Silber

Other Board Member Attendees: Cherine Chalaby, Lito Ibarra, Manal Ismail, and Göran Marby

ICANN Organization Attendees: Akram Atallah (President, Global Domains Division), Casandra Furey (Associate General Counsel), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Aaron Jimenez (Board Operations Senior Coordinator), Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Director, Board Operations), Elizabeth Le (Associate General Counsel), Wendy Profit (Manager, Board Operations), Lisa Saulino (Board Operations Senior Coordinator), and Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel)


The following is a summary of discussions, actions taken, and actions identified:

  1. Next Steps on Asia Green IT S System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. (AGIT) v. ICANN IRP Final Declaration (.HALAL/.ISLAM) – The BAMC discussed its recommendation to the Board for consideration, which is to declare AGIT to be the prevailing party in the IRP, direct ICANN organization to reimburse AGIT for the amount specified in the IRP Final Declaration, and direct the BAMC to re-review the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) non-consensus advice as well as the subsequent communications from or with objecting and supporting parties, in light of the Final Declaration, and provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the applications for .HALAL and .ISLAM should proceed. The BAMC discussed next steps if the recommendation is approved by the Board at its meeting, noting the importance of efficiency.

    • Actions:
      • ICANN organization to reimburse AGIT for the amount specified in the IRP Final Declaration
      • ICANN org to re-review and evaluate the GAC non-consensus advice as well as the subsequent communications from or with objecting and supporting parties, in light of the Final Declaration and provide an evaluation to the BAMC for its consideration
      • BAMC to provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the applications for .HALAL and .ISLAM should proceed.
  2. Next steps on Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) v. ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP) Final Declaration (.PERSIANGULF) – The BAMC discussed its recommendation to the Board for consideration, which is to declare GCC to be the prevailing party in the IRP, and to direct ICANN organization to reimburse GCC for $107,924.16 upon demonstration by GCC that these incurred costs have been paid. The BAMC also recommended that the Board direct the BAMC: (i) to follow the steps required as if the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided non-consensus advice to the Board pursuant to Module 3.1 (subparagraph II) of the Applicant Guidebook regarding .PERSIANGULF; (ii) to review and consider the relevant materials related to the .PERSIANGULF matter; and (iii) to provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the application for .PERSIANGULF should proceed. The BAMC discussed next steps if the recommendation is approved by the Board at its meeting, noting the importance of efficiency.

    • Actions:
      • BAMC to follow the steps required as if the GAC provided non-consensus advice to the Board pursuant to Module 3.1 (subparagraph II) of the Applicant Guidebook regarding .PERSIANGULF.
      • ICANN org to review and evaluate the relevant materials related to the .PERSIANGULF matter and provide an evaluation to BAMC for its consideration.
      • BAMC to provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether or not the application for .PERSIANGULF should proceed.
  3. Discussion of Process for Handing Reconsideration Requests that are Currently "On Hold" - Becky Burr abstained from the discussion, noting potential conflicts. The BAMC noted that the Board has recently received letters from a number of applicants with pending Reconsideration Requests regarding the CPE process. Because some of the letters included lengthy reports, which the BAMC noted dealt mainly with the CPE of the respective sender's new gTLD community applications rather than the CPE Process Review Reports, the Board's consideration of the BAMC's recommendations regarding the next steps in the CPE Process Review was continued from the scheduled 4 February 2018 meeting to the 15 March 2018 meeting to allow the Board additional time to consider the recently submitted materials. If the Board approves the BAMC's recommendations, the BAMC will need to move forward with consideration of the remaining Reconsideration Requests relating to the CPE process that were placed on hold pending completion of the CPE Process Review. The BAMC discussed the process for considering the pending requests as outlined in the Roadmap attached to the proposed Board resolution. The process would include inviting the Requestors the opportunity to present an oral presentation to the BAMC and the opportunity to submit additional materials in support of their requests provided that the materials are related to the CPE Process Review Reports. The BAMC noted that all the pending requests were filed under the Bylaws that were in effect prior to 1 October 2016, which delegated to the Committee the authority to issue a final determination on challenges of staff action and would not require further Board action. The BAMC noted that while some of the pending requests would fall under this category, given the public nature of the CPE Process Review, the BAMC will make recommendations to the Board on all pending requests for the Board to make the final determinations. The BAMC also discussed consideration of Request 17-5 which requires a final determination from the Board by 20 April 2018. The BAMC has continued its consideration of this request as the relief requested under Request 17-5 will be rendered moot if the Board accepts the BAMC's recommendation at the 15 March 2017 meeting.

    • Actions:
      • ICANN org to contact the requestors of pending Reconsideration Requests to invite them to present an oral presentation to the BAMC and submit additional materials related to the CPE Process Review Reports.
      • ICANN org to coordinate with Board Operations for scheduling of BAMC meetings for oral presentations.
      • BAMC to consider pending Reconsideration Requests taking into consideration all relevant materials and provide recommendations to Board for consideration.
      • ICANN org to prepare relevant materials related to Reconsideration Request 17-5 for BAMC consideration.
  4. Discussion on the status of work relating to the new Independent Review Process – The Committee received a briefing on the status of the work of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) in updating the IRP Supplementary Procedures. The BAMC was advised that there are differing positions within the IOT on the issue of the timing by which an IRP may be filed, which may result in another round of public comment on the issue given that the proposals on the deadline are materially different from the prior draft that was published for public comment. The BAMC discussed possible options of resolving the differences.

  5. Litigation Update – The BAMC received a litigation update.

Published on 16 April 2018

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."