Skip to main content
Resources

Minutes | Regular Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee

Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations set forth by law, the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. The full scope of the Committee's authority is set forth in its charter at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gTLD.

A Regular Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors was held telephonically on 14 May 2014 at 13:00 UTC.

Committee Chairman Cherine Chalaby promptly called the meeting to order.

In addition to the Chair the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Fadi Chehadé (President and CEO, ICANN), Steve Crocker (Board Chairman), Chris Disspain, Bill Graham, Olga Madruga-Forti, Gonzalo Navarro, George Sadowsky, and Mike Silber.

Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, Ray Plzak and Kuo-Wei Wu sent apologies.

Jonne Soininen (IETF Liaison) and Suzanne Woolf (RSSAC Liaison) were in attendance as non-voting liaisons to the Committee. Heather Dryden was in attendance as an observer to the Committee.

Invited Guests: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (observing).

Secretary: John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary).

ICANN Executives and Staff in attendance for all or part of the meeting: Akram Atallah (President, Global Domains Division); Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator); Michelle Bright (Board Support Manager); Samantha Eisner (Senior Counsel); Allen Grogan (Chief Contracting Counsel); Dan Halloran (Deputy General Counsel); Jamie Hedlund (Advisor to the President/CEO); Elizabeth Le (Senior Counsel); Cyrus Namazi (Vice President, DNS Industry Engagement); Olof Nordling (Senior Director, GAC Relations); Erika Randall (Counsel); Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel); and Christine Willett (Vice President, gTLD Operations).

These are the Minutes of the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 14 May 2014.

  1. Consent Agenda
    1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Main Agenda
    1. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires, and Singapore GAC Advice
    2. GAC Advice on .AMAZON (and related IDNs)
    3. Perceived Inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations – Review Mechanism
    4. New gTLD Auction Rules
    5. New gTLD Program Financial Update

 

  1. Consent Agenda

    1. Approval of Minutes

      The Chair introduced the items on the Consent Agenda. Chris Disspain moved and Olga Madruga-Forti seconded the resolution to adopt the items on the consent agenda. The Committee took the following action:

      Resolved (2014.05.14.NG01), the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approves the minutes of the 22 March, 26 March and 3-4 April 2014 NGPC meetings.

      All members of the Committee present voted in favor of Resolution 2014.05.14.NG01. Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, Ray Plzak and Kuo-Wei Wu were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried.

  2. Main Agenda

    1. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires, and Singapore GAC Advice

      The Committee continued its discussion of advice issued by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the Board concerning the New gTLD Program. The Committee reviewed the proposed new iteration of the scorecard to respond to the new advice from the GAC delivered in the Singapore Communiqué. Chris Disspain highlighted each of the new items of advice in the scorecard, and the Committee considered its proposed responses and actions.

      The Committee's consideration of the Singapore Communiqué, included discussion of the GAC's advice on specific strings - .SPA, .RAM, and .INDIANS, and the comments submitted by the applicants. The Committee considered the negotiations with the impacted parties noted in the applicant responses, and discussed whether the Committee should encourage or provide opportunity for additional discussions.

      Chris also highlighted certain remaining open items of GAC advice from the Beijing Communiqué, the Durban Communiqué, and the Buenos Aires Communiqué. He provided an update on the ongoing work to develop a response to address the GAC's advice regarding protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) in light of the Board's action approving certain GNSO consensus policy recommendations on protections for IGOs-INGOs.

      Olga Madruga-Forti noted that some members of the community continue to inquire about how the Committee intends to address the Category 2 Safeguard Advice concerning exclusive registry access. She requested that the Committee devote time at an upcoming meeting to explore potential options for addressing the advice.

      Chris Disspain moved, and Bill Graham seconded the proposed resolution. Members of the Committee suggested edits to the scorecard, and the Committee took the following action:

      Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué").

      Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué").

      Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a Communiqué on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires Communiqué").

      Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore and issued a Communiqué on 27 March 2014, which was amended on 16 April 2014 ("Singapore Communiqué").

      Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, 28 September 2013 and 5 February 2014.

      Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué, the Durban Communiqué, the Buenos Aires Communiqué, and new advice in the Singapore Communiqué.

      Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

      Resolved (2014.05.14.NG02), the NGPC adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore): Actions and Updates" (14 May 2014), attached as Annex 1 [PDF, 436 KB] to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore GAC advice as presented in the scorecard.

      All members of the Committee present voted in favor of Resolution 2014.05.14.NG02. Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, Ray Plzak and Kuo-Wei Wu were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2014.05.14.NG02

      Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI permit the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013, its Durban Communiqué dated 18 July 2013, its Buenos Aires Communiqué dated 20 November 2013, and its Singapore Communiqué dated 27 March 2014 (as amended 16 April 2014). The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the policies. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed.

      The NGPC has previously addressed items of the GAC's Beijing, Durban, and Buenos Aires advice, but there are some items that the NGPC continues to work through. Additionally, the GAC issued new advice in its Singapore Communiqué that relates to the New gTLD Program. The NGPC is being asked to consider accepting some of the remaining open items of the Beijing, Durban, and Buenos Aires GAC advice, and new items of advice from Singapore as described in the scorecard in Annex 1 [PDF, 436 KB], dated 14 May 2014.

      As part of its consideration of the GAC advice, ICANN posted the GAC advice on its website and officially notified applicants of the advice, triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1. The Beijing GAC advice was posted on 18 April 2013 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en, the Durban GAC advice was posted on 1 August 2013 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-en, the Buenos Aires GAC advice was posted on 11 December 2013, and the Singapore advice was posted on 11 April 2014. The complete set of applicant responses is provided at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/.

      In addition, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit community input on how the NGPC should address Beijing GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm. The NGPC has considered applicant responses in addition to the community feedback in formulating its response to the remaining items of GAC advice.

      As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

      In adopting its response to remaining items of Beijing, Durban, and Buenos Aires GAC advice, and the new Singapore advice, the NGPC considered the applicant comments submitted, the GAC's advice transmitted in the Communiqués, and the procedures established in the AGB and the ICANN Bylaws. The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the attached scorecard will assist with resolving the GAC advice in a manner that permits the greatest possible number of new gTLD applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible.

      There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution, but fiscal impacts of the possible solutions discussed will be further analyzed if adopted. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS.

      As part of ICANN's organizational administrative function, ICANN posted the Singapore Communiqué and officially notified applicants of the advice on 11 April 2014. The Buenos Aires Communiqué, the Durban Communiqué, and the Beijing Communiqué were posted on 11 December 2013, 18 April 2013 and 1 August 2013, respectively. In each case, this triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1.

    2. GAC Advice on .AMAZON (and related IDNs)

      The Committee continued its discussions of the advice issued by the GAC in the Durban Communiqué concerning the applications for .AMAZON and related IDNs in Japanese and Chinese. In the Durban Communiqué, the GAC advised that it had reached consensus on "GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook" on the applications for .AMAZON and related IDNs in Japanese and Chinese.

      Chris Disspain outlined potential alternatives for the Committee to discuss to address the GAC's advice, which were revised to take into account the Committee's comments during its previous discussions of the matter. The Committee revisited the next steps and potential consequences associated with each of the alternative approaches.

      The Committee engaged in a discussion about options to acknowledge, as appropriate, that there may be continuing dialogue between the concerned governments and Amazon S.á. r.l. Members of the Committee expressed their viewpoints on the merits of this approach. Olga Madruga-Forti made note of Module 3.1 of the Applicant Guidebook, and suggested that the GAC's advice should be considered in this context.

      The Committee discussed a proposed resolution to respond to the GAC advice. After additional discussion, Gonzalo Navarro moved, and Olga Madruga-Forti seconded the resolution, and the Committee took the following action:

      Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué").

      Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in its Durban Communiqué that the GAC reached "consensus on GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook on the following applications: [t]he application for .amazon (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5591)." This item of GAC advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-07-18-Obj-Amazon.

      Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

      Resolved (2014.05.14.NG03), the NGPC accepts the GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-07-18-Obj-Amazon, and directs the President and CEO, or his designee, that the applications for .AMAZON (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5591) filed by Amazon EU S.à r.l. should not proceed. By adopting the GAC advice, the NGPC notes that the decision is without prejudice to the continuing efforts by Amazon EU S.à r.l. and members of the GAC to pursue dialogue on the relevant issues.

      All members of the Committee present voted in favor of Resolution 2014.05.14.NG03. Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, Ray Plzak and Kuo-Wei Wu were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2014.05.14.NG03

      The NGPC's action today, addressing open items of GAC advice concerning .AMAZON (and related IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), is part of the ICANN Board's role to address advice put to it by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI permit the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the policies. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed.

      The action being approved today is to accept the GAC's advice to the ICANN Board contained in the GAC's Durban Communiqué stating that it is the consensus of the GAC that the applications for .AMAZON (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5591) should not proceed. The New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB) provides that if "GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed, this will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved." (AGB § 3.1) To implement this advice, the NGPC is directing the ICANN President and CEO (or his designee) that the applications for .AMAZON (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5591) filed by Amazon EU S.à r.l. should not proceed. By adopting the GAC advice, the NGPC notes that the decision is without prejudice to the continuing efforts by Amazon EU S.à r.l. and members of the GAC to pursue dialogue on the relevant issues.

      As part of its consideration of the GAC advice, ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice, including Amazon EU S.à r.l. (the applicant for .AMAZON (and related IDNs)), triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1. Amazon's response to the Board is provided at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/, and the NGPC has considered this response as part of its deliberations on the GAC advice. In its response to the Board, Amazon asserted that the GAC advice should be rejected because: (1) it is inconsistent with international law; (2) the acceptance of GAC advice would be non-transparent and discriminatory, which conflicts with ICANN's governing documents; and (3) the GAC Advice contravenes policy recommendations implemented within the Applicant Guidebook and achieved through international consensus over many years.

      The NGPC previously decided to further study and analyze the issues raised by the applicant and the GAC advice, and in a recent iteration of the GAC-NGPC Scorecard [PDF, 371 KB] adopted by the NGPC on 5 February 2014 noted that "ICANN has commissioned an independent, third-party expert to provide additional analysis on the specific issues of application of law at issue, which may focus on legal norms or treaty conventions relied on by Amazon or governments." The independent, third-party expert analysis [PDF, 737 KB] ("Expert Analysis") explores relevant international and local law on geographical indications, related international treaties, and principles of intellectual property law to address the specific issues of application of law at issue. Among other things, the Expert Analysis considers whether the consensus advice issued by the GAC is of such nature as to oblige ICANN to reject the application filed by Amazon, or to the contrary, whether the rules and principles cited by Amazon in its response of 23 August 2013 to the GAC's advice oblige ICANN to approve the applications for .AMAZON (and related IDNs). The Expert Analysis concludes the following:

      As regards the application for assignment of the new gTLD '.amazon' filed by the Amazon company:

      i) there is no rule of international, or even regional or national, law applicable in the field of geographical indications which obliges ICANN to reject the application;

      ii) there is no rule of international, or even regional or national, law applicable in the field of intellectual property and in particular of trade marks or in the field of fundamental rights, which obliges ICANN to accept this application.

      The Expert Analysis, which was considered as part of the NGPC's deliberations in adopting this resolution, was provided to the GAC as well as Amazon on 7 April 2014. ICANN provided the Expert Analysis to keep the parties informed and noted that it welcomed any additional information that the parties believed to be relevant to the NGPC in making its final decision on the GAC's advice.

      In response to the 7 April 2014 communication to the GAC and Amazon, ICANN received related correspondence, including the following, which were considered as part of the NGPC's action:

      • Letter [PDF, 66 KB] dated 11 April 2014 from Mr. Fernando Rojas Samanéz (Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peru). The letter comments on the independent, third party advice and requests that the NGPC reject the applications for .AMAZON. The letter comments on the Expert Analysis and requests that the NGPC reject the applications for .AMAZON.

      • Letter dated 14 April 2014 from Mr. Benedicto Fonseca Filho (Director, Department of Scientific and Technological Themes, Ministry of External Relations, Federative Republic of Brazil) and Mr. Virgilio Fernandes Almeida (National Secretary for Information Technology Policies, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Federative Republic of Brazil). The letter reiterates Brazil's objection to the applications for .AMAZON.

      • Letter dated 14 April 2014 from Mr. Scott Hayden (Vice President, Intellectual Property – Amazon). The letter comments on the Expert Analysis and requests that the NGPC allow the applications for .AMAZON to continue to move forward.

      The NGPC considered several significant factors during its deliberations about how to address the GAC advice concerning .AMAZON (and related IDNs). The NGPC had to balance the competing interests of each factor to arrive at a decision. The concerns raised by the relevant parties highlight the difficulty of the issue. In addition to the factors highlighted above, the following are among the factors the NGPC found to be significant:

      • Although the NGPC does not have the benefit of the rationale relied upon by the GAC in issuing its consensus advice in the Durban Communiqué on the applications for .AMAZON (and related IDNs), the NGPC considered the reason/rationale provided in the GAC Early Warning [PDF, 79 KB] submitted on behalf of the governments of Brazil and Peru on 20 November 2012 expressing concern regarding Amazon's application for the .AMAZON gTLD. In the Early Warning, the concerned governments indicated that among other reasons, it was requesting that Amazon withdraw its application because "[g]ranting exclusive rights to this specific gTLD to a private company would prevent the use of this domain for the purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome. It would also hinder the possibility of use of this domain to congregate web pages related to the population inhabiting that geographical region." The Early Warning also explains that the applied-for string "matches part of the name, in English, of the 'Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization', an international organization which coordinates initiatives in the framework of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty…."

      • The NGPC also considered correspondence received on the matter, and takes particular note of correspondence from Amazon dated 4 July 2013 and 3 December 2013, wherein Amazon describes its "attempts to find a mutual resolution with the Governments of Brazil and Peru" concerning the .AMAZON applications, and the public interest commitments it is willing to include as contractually enforceable provisions in the Registry Agreement. Amazon indicates that it is willing to be contractually committed to do the following:

        • Limit the registration of culturally sensitive terms such as "Amazonia," "Amazonas," and "Amazonica" under the .AMAZON new gTLD to OTCA [Organização do Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica's] and its Member Governments.

        • Continue to engage in good faith discussions with the OTCA and its member governments to identify any other existing terms of specific cultural sensitivity.

        • Present a Memorandum of Understanding to ICANN setting out Amazon's non-objection to any future application filed by the OTCA and/or its Member Governments for the terms ".AMAZONIA", ".AMAZONAS", or ".AMAZONICA".

      • The NGPC considered the community-developed processes established in the Applicant Guidebook, including Section 5.1 of the Applicant Guidebook, which provides that, "ICANN's Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for the New gTLD Program. The Board reserves the right to individually consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would be in the best interest of the Internet community. Under exceptional circumstances, the Board may individually consider a gTLD application. For example, the Board might individually consider an application as a result of GAC Advice on New gTLDs or of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism."

      As part of its deliberations, the NGPC's review of significant materials included, but is not limited to the following, letters, materials and documents:

      There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. As part of ICANN's organizational administrative function, ICANN posted the Singapore Communiqué, the Buenos Aires Communiqué, the Durban Communiqué, and the Beijing Communiqué and officially notified applicants of the advice. In each case, this triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1. Additionally, as noted above, the Expert Analysis was provided to the GAC as well as Amazon on 7 April 2014. ICANN provided the analysis to keep the parties informed and noted that it welcomed any additional information that the parties believed to be relevant to the NGPC in making its final decision on the GAC's advice.

    3. Perceived Inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations – Review Mechanism

      Amy Stathos provided a report to the Committee about the public comments received on a possible review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations. In her report she discussed the general themes and categories of comments submitted by the community, which included a discussion of the comments urging that the Committee not adopt the review mechanism, as well as those comments urging that a review mechanism with an expanded scope should be adopted to address additional String Confusion Objections and Expert Determinations in general. Amy highlighted the reasons provided by some of the public commenters in support of their recommended positions, and the Committee engaged in a discussion of the public comments and the potential consequences associated with the actions recommended by the comments.

      The Chair inquired about whether public comments were submitted by the applicants and registry operator that would be directly impacted if the review mechanism were adopted to address the perceived inconsistencies in the .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations. Amy reported on the comments received from those parties who would be directly impacted by the review mechanism. Chris Disspain asked whether the public comments presented a clear consensus on any one position.

      The Committee engaged in a discussion about the development of the objection processes in the Applicant Guidebook, including the objection consolidation procedures noted in the Applicant Guidebook. George Sadowsky inquired whether there were policy matters implicated that may require some form of outreach to the GNSO, and the Committee engaged in a discussion of the same.

      The Committee requested that additional briefing materials be prepared in light of the discussion so that the matter could be acted upon at a subsequent meeting.

    4. New gTLD Auction Rules

      Christine Willett provided an update to the Committee on the New gTLD auction rules, noting that the auction rules were published in March 2014 and are consistent with the Applicant Guidebook. She highlighted some of the changes made to the auction rules in response to public comments, including rotating auction start times to better accommodate the fact that potential auction participants may be disbursed across different time zones. Christine noted that the Bidder's Agreement also was revised in response to public comments. She reported that as a next step, staff intended to publish a set of rules concerning indirect contention sets.

      Christine provided an estimated timeline for auctions, and informed the Committee that the first auction was scheduled for 4 June 2014. She noted, however, that there were potentially some items that could impact the auction schedule, such as finalizing the name collision framework. Akram Atallah noted that there were alternative auction services being offered in the community.

      George Sadowsky asked for clarification about how much of the auctions would be visible to the community on a real-time basis. Christine stated that the auction would be visible to the auction participants, but that the results would be published to the community. In response to questions from the Committee, Christine also provided additional clarity about what happens if an applicant defaults on payment of the bid.

    5. New gTLD Program Financial Update

      The Committee did not consider this agenda item and decided that it should be considered at a subsequent meeting.

      The Chair called the meeting to a close.

Published on 23 June 2014

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""icann.org"" is not an IDN."