Skip to main content
Resources

Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting Minutes

BGC Attendees: Chris Disspain, Olga Madruga-Forti, Ray Plzak, Mike Silber, and Bruce Tonkin – Chair

Other Board Member Attendees: Steve Crocker

Executive and Staff Attendees: Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator), Michelle Bright (Board Support Manager), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Elizabeth Le (Senior Counsel), and Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel)

Apologies: Cherine Chalaby and Ram Mohan


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

  1. Minutes – The BGC approved the minutes from the meeting on 5 February 2014.

  2. Reconsideration Request 14-3 – Ram Mohan abstained from participation of this matter noting conflicts. Staff briefed the BGC regarding Corn Lake, LLC's Request seeking reconsideration of the Expert Determination upholding the Independent Objector's community objection to Corn Lake's application for .CHARITY. Corn Lake claims that the Expert Panel failed to adhere to and apply ICANN processes and policies concerning the requirements for identifying a clearly delineated community and for showing the likelihood of material detriment as set forth in Sections 3.5 and 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration because there is no evidence that the Panel violated any policy or process in reaching the Panel's determination. The BGC determined that Corn Lake failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in evaluating the Independent Objector's Objection. The Bylaws authorize the BGC to make a final determination on Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction; the BGC still has the discretion, but is not required, to recommend the matter to the Board for consideration. Accordingly, the BGC concluded that its determination on Request 14-3 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted.

  3. Reconsideration Request 14-5 - Ram Mohan abstained from participation of this matter noting conflicts. Staff briefed the BGC regarding Vistaprint Limited's ("Vistaprint") Request seeking reconsideration of the Expert Determination upholding Web.com Group, Inc.'s string confusion objections to the Requester's applications for .WEBS. Vistaprint claims that the ICDR failed to follow applicable ICDR procedures governing the appointment and conduct of experts by violating applicable ICDR procedures concerning: (i) the timely appointment of an expert panel; (ii) the acceptance of additional written submissions; (iii) the timely issuance of an expert determination; (iv) an expert's duty to remain impartial and independent; and (v) challenges to experts. Vistaprint also claims that the actions of the Expert Panel violated applicable ICANN policies concerning: (i) the Objector's burden of proof; and (ii) the standards governing the evaluation of a string confusion objection. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that with respect to Requester's claims concerning the ICDR's alleged violations of applicable ICDR procedures concerning experts, there is no evidence that the ICDR deviated from the standards set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure, or the ICDR's Supplementary Procedures for String Confusion Objections (Rules). The BGC further determined that the Requester failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure. The Bylaws authorize the BGC to make a final determination on Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction; the BGC still has the discretion, but is not required, to recommend the matter to the Board for consideration. Accordingly, the BGC concluded that its determination on Request 14-5 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted.

  4. AOB

  • Practice and Guideline on Invitations to Events and Receiving Gifts by Board Members – The BGC discussed the proposed practice and guidelines on invitations to events and gifts. The BGC members discussed various considerations that should be factored into the proposed guidelines. The BGC agreed to consider the proposed guidelines at its meeting in Singapore.

    • Action – Staff to draft proposed guidelines for further consideration by the BGC.

  • Compensation for Board Liaisons – Staff briefed the BGC on various issues surrounding the potential for providing compensation to Board Liaisons. The BGC asked staff to prepare a recommendation for consideration at the Singapore BGC meeting.

    • Action – Staff to prepare a proposed BGC recommendation to the Board regarding compensation for Board Liaisons for consideration at the Singapore BGC meeting.

Published 13 March 2014

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."