Skip to main content

Structural Improvements Committee Meeting Minutes

6-7 March 2010

SIC Attendees: Ray Plzak – Chair, Raimundo Beca, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, and Jonne Soininen, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Other Board attendees: Harald Alvestrand, Peter Dengate Thrush and Dennis Jennings

Staff Attendees: David Olive – Vice President, Policy Development; Samantha Eisner, Rob Hoggarth, Marco Lorenzoni, Diane Schroeder, Amy Stathos and Heidi Ullrich

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

  1. The 6 March 2010 meeting was called to order at 11:02 am local time in Nairobi.

  2. Reviewed the minutes from the prior SIC meeting, and all voting members in attendance unanimously approved the minutes.

  3. Reviewed the status of action items identified at the previous meeting. The following action items were carried over:
    • Actions:
      • Staff to provide future updates to the SIC on progress on NCSG charter.
      • Staff to provide future updates to the SIC when GNSO Improvements implementation issues arise that merit SIC or Board action.

  4. Received an update on the status of the RSSAC review Working Group’s ongoing work to come to a conclusion of the review and produce a final report of work. The SIC was reminded that a meeting to discuss the RSSAC review would be held at the Nairobi meeting and all could attend.

  5. Discussed the need for clear, objective criteria for proposed new GNSO constituencies to satisfy in order to achieve Board approval/recognition. The SIC also discussed the outstanding expectation for the Board to review the charters of existing GNSO constituencies in conformity with a resolution of the Board in Seoul, and the need to extend the time for community preparation of those submissions.
    • Actions:
      • SIC members to review and revise draft Staff resolution recommending to the Board that the time for charter reviews should be extended.
      • If approved, staff to forward the SIC recommendation to the Board for consideration.
      • Three SIC member volunteers (George Sadowsky, Mike Silber and Jonne Soininen) to propose criteria for measurement of affirmations of the constituencies.

  6. Discussed structural issues and competing recommendations from structural reviews – including the Board review Working Group, the ALAC review, and the Nominating Committee (NomCom) review – presented in achieving the Board-approved principle of the addition of a voting member of the Board selected by the At Large community. The structural issues include effect on the total number of Board directors, impacts on the NomCom process. The SIC noted the need to move forward with this work in a timely fashion.

  7. Discussed the submission of the SSAC, Board and NomCom review Working Groups’ final reports, and that final presentations on all three reports will be made at the Nairobi meeting. The voting members of the SIC unanimously agreed to present a resolution to the Board recommending the receipt of the reports, thanking the members of the Working Groups for their work, and charging the SIC to oversee the planning to be done to implement the recommendations arising out of those reports. The SIC also agreed to insert a timeframe for the planning work into the resolution.
    • Action:
      • SIC members to revise resolution to include a temporal reference for work.
      • Staff to forward the SIC recommendation to the Board for consideration.

  8. Due to external time constraints, the SIC meeting adjourned at 12:02 pm local time. The SIC Chair called a second meeting to order at 12:40 pm local time on 7 March 2010. All SIC members were in attendance, as well as Dennis Jennings from the Board and Samantha Eisner, Diane Schroeder and Amy Stathos from Staff.

  9. Discussed the staff proposal for a review of the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), and reviewed the potential for having a more lightweight, internal review of the TLG because of the unique character of the group. Because of the liaison relationship, the SIC discussed that it would be more appropriate to not use an external reviewer for the TLG review. The SIC also discussed that public consultation would be sought on the release of the draft final report of the Working Group and the Working Group would be constituted with current and former members of the Board and liaisons. The voting members of the SIC unanimously approved a recommendation to the Board to approve moving forward with the review of the TLG in this form.
    • Actions:
      • After modifying as agreed to by the SIC, staff to forward the SIC recommendation to the Board for consideration.

  10. Discussed preparations for SIC members participating in gatherings with community members at the Nairobi meeting.

  11. The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 pm local time.
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."