Skip to main content

Minutes | Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting

Published 20 June 2015

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

BGC Member Apologies: Suzanne Woolf

Executive and Staff Attendees: Akram Atallah (President – Global Domains Division), Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Liz Le (Senior Counsel), 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 14 April 2015 meeting.

  2. Reconsideration Request 15-3 – Staff briefed the BGC regarding the request submitted by Brice Trail, LLC seeking reconsideration of the New gTLD Program Committee's (NGPC's) decision, and ICANN staff's implementation of that decision, to accept the Governmental Advisory Committee's (GAC's) advice that applicants for .DOCTOR adhere to a Public Interest Commitment to restrict domain registrations in .DOCTOR to "legitimate medical practitioners." Staff provided a recap of the relevant events leading up to the filing of Reconsideration. After discussion, the BGC moved to recommend that the NGPC again review the proposed implementation of a PIC for .DOCTOR and to re-evaluate its 12 February 2015 determination.

    • Actions:

      • Staff to draft Paper for consideration at next NGPC meeting.

      • Staff will notify the Requester of the BGC's recommendation.

  3. Reconsideration Request 15-5: Staff briefed the BGC regarding the request submitted by Atgron, Inc. seeking reconsideration of the BGC's determination of Reconsideration Request 15-1. Request 15-1 challenged staff's actions in processing the Requester's Registry Services Evaluation Policy ("RSEP") request to allow the Requester to offer third-level domain name registrations in .WED. On 19 March 2015, the BGC determined that the Requester failed to demonstrate that ICANN staff acted in contravention of any established policy or procedure in responding to the RSEP Request and therefore, the BGC denied Request 15-1. After discussion, the BGC noted that Request 15-5 is based on the same facts and circumstances as Request 15-1, and makes no claims that the BGC failed to consider material information, or considered false or inaccurate material information, in deciding Request 15-1. Accordingly, the BGC finds that Request 15-5 should be summarily dismissed pursuant to Article IV, Section 2.9 of the Bylaws.

  4. Reconsideration Request 15-6: Staff briefed the BGC regarding the request submitted by Music LLC seeking reconsideration of ICANN's decisions to: (1) approve a change request submitted by DotMusic Limited (DML); and (2) defer a change request submitted by the Requester, both of which were submitted pursuant to the New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria. Music LLC submitted a change request seeking to modify its answers in its Application relating to the mission/purpose of the proposed TLD and the community based designation. ICANN staff evaluated the Requester's Change Request in accordance with the Change Request Process and informed the Requester that the determination of its Change Request would be deferred until the completion of Community Priority Evaluation of its Application. DML also submitted a change request but it was not a request to change its application or any responses to questions in its application. Rather, DML's change request sought to add commitments per Section 2 of the Specification 11 Public Interest Commitment to the Registry Agreement that DML would sign if it were eventually approved as the registry operator for .MUSIC. ICANN staff evaluated DML's Change Request in accordance with the Change Request Process and approved DML's Change Request to amend its PIC, the content of which was fully consistent with the DML's application for .MUSIC. After discussion, the BGC determined that the Requester's claims do not support reconsideration. ICANN did not violate any established policy or procedure either in approving DML's Change Request or in deferring the Requester's Change Request. 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 15-6 is final; no consideration by the NGPC is warranted. Staff did report that it was taking action to clarify the distinction between the PIC and additional information DML provided, but is not part of the PIC

    • Action: Staff will conclude the actions it proposed to take to clarify on the New gTLD microsite that only the first two pages of the document submitted by DML constitute the PIC.

  5. Ombudsman – The BGC discussed the upcoming expiration of the Ombudsman's current contract, and discussed and agreed on a recommendation to the Board re: going forward.

    • Action: Staff to prepare paper for Board consideration.

  6. AOB – DCA Trust IRP – The BGC discussed the IRP Panel's declaration calling for witnesses to appear at the hearing for questioning on 22-23 May 2015. The BGC also discussed the implications of complying with the declaration.

    • Actions:

      • Staff to prepare an informational paper for the Board.

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."