Skip to main content

Minutes | Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting

Posted 3 September 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: Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator), Michelle Bright (Board Support Content Manager), Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Board Support Content Manager), 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 20 June 2015 meeting.

  2. Reconsideration Request 15-9 and 15-10 - Staff briefed the BGC regarding the requests submitted by Atgron, Inc., seeking reconsideration of ICANN staff's actions in processing Atgron's Registry Services Evaluation Policy ("RSEP") request to modify registry services that Atgron provides pursuant to its registry agreement for .WED ("RA"). The BGC noted that Requests 15-9 and 15-10 are Atgron's fourth and fifth reconsideration requests relating to ICANN staff's actions in processing Atgron's RSEP request and that Requests 15-9 and 15-10 are also based on the same facts and circumstances as Atgron's prior requests. After discussion, the BGC finds that like Atgron's previous requests, Requests 15-9 and 15-10 fail to satisfy the reconsideration criteria set forth in the Bylaws. First, Requests 15-9 and 15-10 were filed five months and seven months, respectively, after the complained-of staff actions, and are therefore time-barred. Further, although Requests 15-9 and 15-10 assert grounds not advanced in Atgron's three prior reconsideration requests, Atgron again does not demonstrate any misapplication of any policy or procedure by ICANN staff. The BGC therefore denies Requests 15-9 and 15-10. 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 Requests 15-9 and 15-10 is final; no consideration by the Board or NGPC is warranted.

  3. Reconsideration Request 15-11 – Chris Disspain abstained from participation in this matter noting a potential conflict. Staff briefed the BGC regarding the request submitted by Motion Picture Domain Registry Pty Ltd. ("MPDR"), the registry operator for .FILM gTLD, seeking reconsideration of ICANN's response to MPDR's Request For Release Of Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels. Specifically, MPDR seeks reconsideration of ICANN's decision pursuant to the Process for Requesting Authorization for Release of Letter/Letter Two-Character Labels ("Process") to withhold the two-letter labels that were subject to objections, most of which were comprised of governmental entities' concerns that those two-letter labels could interfere with certain two-letter country code TLDs. After discussion, the BGC agreed to continue its discussion regarding Request 15-11 at the next BGC meeting.

    • Action - Staff to revise materials for further review at the BGC's next meeting on 3 September 2013.

  4. Reconsideration Request 15-13 - Staff briefed the BGC regarding the request submitted by Commercial Connect, LLC seeking reconsideration of the Community Priority Evaluation ("CPE") panel's report, and ICANN's acceptance of that report, finding that the Requester did not prevail in CPE for the .SHOP string ("CPE Report"). The Requester also challenges various procedures governing the New gTLD Program, as well as the String Similarity Review process and the adjudication of various string confusion objections, which ultimately resulted in the contention set for its Application. After discussion, the BGC found that the Requester's claims are unsupported. The BGC noted that all of the issues raised by the Requester are time-barred. Additionally, the BGC concluded that the Requester has not demonstrated that the CPE Panel acted in contravention of any established policy or procedure in rendering the CPE Report and that the Requester's substantive disagreement with the CPE Report is not a basis for reconsideration. Finally, the BGC found that the Requester has not demonstrated a basis for reconsideration with respect to the other issues it raised regarding the procedures set forth in the Guidebook the outcome of the String Similarity Review and the outcome of its string confusion objections, all of which are time-barred in any event. The BGC therefore concluded that the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and therefore recommends to the NGPC that Request 15-13 be denied.

    • Action: Staff to prepare materials for consideration by New gTLD Program Committee at its next meeting in September 2015.

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."