Skip to main content

IANA Committee (IC) Minutes

BGC Attendees: Bill Graham, Thomas Narten, Mike Silber, Suzanne Woolf, Kuo-Wei Wu – Chair

Staff Attendees: Joe Abley, Megan Bishop, Michelle Cotton, Kim Davies, Elise Gerich, Jamie Hedlund and Amy Stathos

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

  1. Delegation Report re: new gTLDs – Staff provided a report about the nature and timing of delegation reports for new gTLDs. Staff noted that the focus is to develop streamline reporting, with goal of eliminating duplication of work. The new gTLD team will compile a report showing all of the evaluation and steps that each application has followed. The IANA department will then review that report and transmit it to NTIA. Mostly there will be a simple yes and no checklist, but if there are particular issues then those will be explained in detail in the report to NTIA. The format of the report is currently with NTIA for final approval, but the development of all processes has been moving forward with this checklist approach.

  2. Consultation on Root Zone KSK Rollover – Staff reported on the consultation taking place. Currently the consultation is in the Reply period and ICANN is encouraging further comment from as many people as possible. Staff reported about the comments that have been received thus far, which include comments on the following areas: accuracy, operational transparency and outreach; compliance with RFC, KSK rollover, and opportunities for testing. Basically, commenters are keen for ICANN to continue the good work while improving transparency and reporting. The next steps are for ICANN to take all comments received and use them for basis of design work. ICANN will propose some changes, a schedule and a break down of the various communications intended to those affected by a key rollover. The plan is to work through those until reaching consensus and then move forward to implementation.

  3. Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Staff reported on the work of the working group. The working group is tasked with a narrow mandate to provide definition to concepts in RFC1591 and GAC principles. Group meets twice a month to discuss issues and comes up with set of recommendations on how to interpret policy statements and how IANA Department should implement them. Initially the goal was to implement each piece of work as it was developed and agreed. But that has changed and now once all areas are done, then the group will go back to look at all of the work as a whole and recommend that the entire package of work be approved by the ccNSO and GAC, although that process is not fully in place. One issue dealt with is "consent." While the working group has posted its position on this, it has not yet been adopted by ccNSO or GAC. Group has also looked at the phrase "significantly interested party". This topic has not reached a form of consensus yet. The group has also looked at topic of "revocation." Work is progressing as intended.

  4. 16-bit AS numbers – Staff reported that we are running out of 16-bit AS numbers. Global policy says that allocations will be done in blocks of 1,024. The amount of 16-bit AS numbers are no longer divisible by 1,024. In past, if got a block of AS numbers they were all 16-bit or all 32-bit. We are now asking for confirmation that global policy does not make a distinction between 16-bit and 32-bit, so we can give out blocks of AS numbers combining both of them.

  5. Root Zone Management System Improvements – Staff reported that improvements to its Root Zone Management System were put into production on 1 May 2013. These improvements primarily relate to a new automated workflow for new gTLD applicants to apply for delegation of their domains. This work was a joint project between ICANN, Verisign and NTIA.

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."