Skip to main content
Resources

Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting Minutes

BGC Attendees: Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Ram Mohan, Ray Plzak, Mike Silber, and Bruce Tonkin – Chair

Apologies: Olga Madruga-Forti

Other Board Member Attendees: Steve Crocker

Executive and Staff Attendees: Susanna Bennett (Chief Operating Officer), 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)


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

  1. Minutes – The BGC approved the minutes from the meeting on 13 March 2014.

  2. Request 14-1 – Ram Mohan abstained from participation of this matter noting conflicts. Staff briefed the BGC regarding Medistry LLC's Request seeking reconsideration of the Expert Determination, and ICANN's acceptance of that Determination, upholding the Independent Objector's ("IO") Community Objection to Medistry's application for .MED. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that Medistry has stated proper grounds for reconsideration in that Medistry has identified a Guidebook requirement that may not have been satisfied. Accordingly, the BGC accepted Request 14-1 so that further evaluation can be conducted as to whether all of the requirements were satisfied when the IO filed the relevant Community Objection. Accepting the Request gives the BGC the time to gather and evaluate additional information needed to make its decision as to whether anything should be changed. Once the BGC has completed its evaluation of the additional information, the BGC will issue a Determination on the Reconsideration Request. 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 14-1 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted.

    • Action – Staff to evaluate additional information and provide report to BGC for consideration.
  3. Request 14-8 – Ram Mohan abstained from participation of this matter noting conflicts. Staff briefed the BGC regarding DotMusic/CGR E-Commerce Ltd.'s Request seeking reconsideration of ICANN staff's alleged failure (inaction) to properly supervise the dispute resolution provider in training and selecting the Expert Panel, to advise the provider and the Panel about GAC advice, and to provide an appeal process for community objections. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration as the Requester failed to identify any policy or process violation that supports reconsideration. 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 14-8 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted.

  4. Compensation for Board Liaisons – The BGC discussed the next steps in the consideration of compensation for Board Liaisons. The BGC approved a motion directing the BGC Chair to ask the Compensation Committee to analyze if there are barriers that would prohibit ICANN from offering compensation to liaisons. If there are no such barriers, the next step will be to post for public comment, proposed Bylaws changes reflecting the that Board Liaisons are entitled to receive compensation if the Board approves compensation for liaisons.

    • Action – The BGC Chair to ask the Compensation Committee to include consideration of compensation for Board liaisons as part of the Compensation Committee's Board compensation analysis.
  5. Training – The BGC discussed the development of a Board Member Training Plan and the considerations for that plan. The BGC agreed to recommend the matter to the Board for consideration.

    • Action – Staff to prepare proposed resolution for Board consideration.
  6. Board-GAC Implementation Working Group – The BGC discussed and recommended that the Board extend the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG) to included overseeing the implementation of the GAC-related recommendations from the ATRT2 that are adopted by the ICANN Board.

    • Action – Staff to revise proposed resolution for Board consideration.
  7. Nominating Committee (NomCom) Related Action Items – The BGC discussed various BGC action items relating to the NomCom, including the recruitment of prospective candidates for selection to the ICANN Board, the size and composition of the NomCom, standing procedures for the NomCom, the Code of Conduct and Ethics for the NomCom, the selection of members to positions other than the ICANN Board by the NomCom, and appointment of additional members to the NomCom, whether as voting members, particularly a person chosen by the Non For-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ("NPOC"). Given that the Board previously approved the Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) to consider the matter of size and composition of the NomCom, the BGC recommended that the matters of recruitment and selection be added to that Working Group's charter. The BGC also concluded that any discussion of new members to the NomCom should be considered by the BWG-NomCom.

    • Actions:
      • The BGC to advise the NPOC of its decision to include the possible appointment of an NPOC delegate to the NomCom in the charter of the BWG-NomCom.

      • Staff to prepare resolution adopting revised BWG-NomCom charter for Board consideration.

  8. ATRT2 – The BGC reviewed and discussed the ATRT2 recommendations that are relate to Board governance.

Published on 30 April 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."