Skip to main content

Minutes | Board Governance Committee (BGC) Meeting

Published on 16 June 2016

BRC Attendees: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain – Chair, Erika Mann Mike Silber, and Bruce Tonkin

BGC Apologies: Suzanne Woolf

Executive and Staff Attendees: Akram Atallah (President and CEO); President, Global Domains Division), Megan Bishop (Board Operations Coordinator), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Vinciane Koenigsfeld (Board Operations Content Manager), Melissa King (VP, Board Operations), Elizabeth Le (Senior Counsel), Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel), and Christine Willett (VP of gTLD Operations)

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

  1. AICPA's Oral Presentation to the BGC re Reconsideration Request 15-17 – AICPA made a presentation to the BGC regarding Reconsideration Request 15-17. AICPA highlighted the errors it alleges occurred with respect to the Community Priority Evaluation of AICPA's application for .CPA. AICPA's written summary of its presentation has been published at

  2. Dotgay LLC's Request to Make a Presentation to the BGC – The BGC discussed dotgay LLC's request for an opportunity to make a presentation to the BGC regarding Request 16-3. The BGC agreed to extend an invitation to dotgay LLC to make a presentation. The BGC further agreed that, if requested, the Committee would extend invitations to community applicant requesters to make a presentation to the BGC regarding their reconsideration requests.

    • Action:

      • Staff to notify dotgay LLC of the BGC's invitation to make a telephonic presentation at the next BGC meeting in May 2016.

  3. Reconsideration Request 16-4 – Staff briefed the BGC on Request 16-4, seeking reconsideration of the Contractual Compliance department's response to the Requester's complaint regarding a dispute about a domain name between the Requester and the relevant domain name registrar. After discussion, the BGC concluded that additional information was needed for its consideration of Request 16-4. The BGC requested that additional information be provided to it regarding the nature and basis of the dispute between the registrant and registrar. The BGC continued its consideration of the Request 16-4 until the requested information has been provided.

    • Action:

      • Staff to ensure additional information is gathered and presented to the BGC for consideration.

  4. Ombudsman – The BGC discussed the Ombudsman's contract, which expires in July 2016.

  5. Updates

    • Conduct at ICANN meetings

      The BGC discussed the status of the ongoing work within ICANN as well as the ICANN community regarding conduct at ICANN meetings, including amending the Expected Standards of Behavior as well as recommending that the Board direct staff to retain an expert with experience in drafting and implementing relevant anti-harassment policies to assist in the development of a Community anti-harassment policy/procedure to be followed at ICANN Public meetings.

      • Actions:

        • Staff to prepare a draft amended Expected Standards of Behavior for further consideration.
        • Staff to prepare a Board paper for the BGC's consideration at its next meeting in May.
    • Board self-evaluation

      • Actions:

        Staff to provide a report of the evaluation at the next BGC meeting in May 2016.

  6. AOB

    • Reconsideration Request 16-5: DotMusic Limited (.MUSIC) – Staff provided the BGC with an update on Request 16-5, advising the Committee that DotMusic has submitted a DIDP request and asked that the BGC's consideration of Request 16-5 be postponed pending receipt of a response to its DIDP request. Staff further advised the BGC that DotMusic has indicated that it will likely amend its reconsideration request after receipt of the DIDP response, and that the current Request 16-5 seeks an opportunity to make a presentation to the BGC.

    • Board Working Group on Internet Governance – The BGC noted that it would consider the recommendation that the Board formally establish the Working Group on Internet Governance at its meeting in May 2016.

      • Actions :
        • BGC Chair to seek volunteers for the working group.
        • Staff to prepare a Board paper for the BGC's consideration at its May 2016 meeting.
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."