Skip to main content

Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting Minutes

BGC Attendees: Cherine Chalaby, Mike Silber, Erika Mann, Suzanne Woolf, Gonzalo Navarro, Bruce Tonkin, and Chris Disspain – Chair

Executive and Staff Attendees: John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator), and Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel)

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

  1. Minutes – The BGC approved the minutes from the meeting on 11 October 2014.

  2. Reconsideration Request 14-40 – Bruce Tonkin abstained from participation in this matter noting potential perception of conflict; Bruce indicated that his employer provided consulting services for UK Creative Ideas Limited which is an applicant for .ART, and, while not material to this particular decision, he would abstain to prevent any perception of bias. Staff briefed the BGC regarding Dadotart, Inc.'s ("Requester's") request seeking reconsideration of the Community Priority Evaluation ("CPE") Panel's Report ("CPE Report"), and ICANN's acceptance of the CPE Report, which found that the Requester did not prevail in the CPE for .ART. On 25 September 2014, the Requester filed Reconsideration Request 14-40 claiming that the CPE Panel failed to comply with established ICANN policies and procedures in rendering the CPE Report. Specifically, the Requester contends that policies or procedures were violated because: (i) the CPE Panel was comprised of two panelists, which the Requester claims was contrary to the "original intent" set forth in the Applicant Guidebook; (ii) the Economic Intelligence Unit ("EIU"), the CPE provider, declined to identify the panelist who rendered the CPE Report; (iii) the CPE Report allegedly demonstrates a lack of objectivity; and (iv) ICANN declined to produce "any communication between itself and EIU" or the results of "test/pilot evaluations" conducted by the EIU with respect to its panels. After discussion and consideration of the Reconsideration Request, the BGC concluded that the Requester has not demonstrated that the EIU, the CPE Panel, or ICANN acted in contravention of established policy or procedure and, therefore, determined that Request 14-40 be denied. The Bylaws authorize the BGC to make a final determination on Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction and the BGC concluded that its determination on Request 14-40 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted.

  3. BGC 2015 Workplan – Staff provided the BGC with an overview of the 2015 BGC Workplan, including Charter items, additional non-Charter items, and the preliminary schedule of BGC Meetings (both telephonic and in-person). The BGC discussed the schedule of upcoming meetings, the designated tasks, and the timeline for coordination and completion of those tasks. The BGC also discussed the coordination of the term-ending Board member evaluations, as well as Board-level evaluations.

    • Action: Staff to prepare an overview for the BGC of the potential process and cost of the coordination of Board-level evaluation through an online questionnaire and through the use of an independent review firm.

Published on 18 November 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"""" is not an IDN."