Skip to main content

Minutes | 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

A Regular Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors was held in London, England on 21 June 2014 at 13:00 local time.

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, Bruno Lanvin, Olga Madruga-Forti, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Ray Plzak, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, and Kuo-Wei Wu.

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

Heather Dryden sent apologies.

Board Member Elect: 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); Francisco Arias (Director, Technical Services   Global Domains Division); Megan Bishop (Board Support Coordinator); Michelle Bright (Board Support Manager); Xavier Calvez (Chief Financial Officer); John Crain (Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer); Allen Grogan (Chief Contracting Counsel); Jamie Hedlund (Advisor to the President/CEO); Serena Lai (Paralegal); Cyrus Namazi (Vice President, DNS Industry Engagement); Erika Randall (Counsel); Ashwin Rangan (Chief Innovation and Information Officer); Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel); and Christine Willett (Vice President, gTLD Operations).

Invited Guest (Main Agenda Item 2.c): Ram Mohan.

These are the Minutes of the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 21 June 2014.

  1. Consent Agenda
    1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Main Agenda
    1. GAC Advice – Category 2 Safeguards, Exclusive Access and IGO Protections
    2. Consideration of Sensitive Strings
    3. Name Collision Framework
    4. 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 Mike Silber seconded the resolution to adopt the items on the Consent Agenda. The Committee took the following action:

      Resolved (2014.06.21.NG01), the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approves the minutes of the 5 March, 29 April, 14 May, and 6 June 2014 NGPC meetings.

      All members of the Committee present voted in favor of Resolution 2014.06.21.NG01. The Resolution carried.

  2. Main Agenda

    1. GAC Advice – Category 2 Safeguards, Exclusive Access and IGO Protections

      The Committee continued its discussion of the remaining open items of Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice, which included consideration of the Category 2 Safeguard advice from the Beijing Communiqué. Chris Disspain presented the Committee with an overview of optional next steps that could be taken in an effort to make progress on resolving the advice, including engaging in a dialogue with the GAC about the responses from the twelve applicants who indicated their intent to provide exclusive registry access for a generic string. Each of the applicants provided a response about how their exclusive registry access would serve a public interest goal.

      Olga Madruga-Forti highlighted some of the public interest goals submitted in the applicants' responses. Olga commented on the various options presented, and suggested that the Committee may want to consider putting the applicants' statements out for public comment. George Sadowsky noted that the issue of evaluating or defining the public interest will be a recurring theme in the coming months as the community engages in the broader discussions about the Affirmation of Commitments and accountability. The Committee considered whether it would be appropriate and beneficial to initiate a public comment period concerning the responses from the twelve applicants. Chris Disspain suggested that, if the Committee decides to initiate a public comment period, the Committee should pose specific questions for the public comment forum. The Committee discussed this option, and directed staff to prepare potential questions that could be used to frame a possible public comment forum. The Committee agreed to consider this matter further at a subsequent meeting.

      Chris provided the Committee with an update on the progress to address the GAC's advice concerning protections for IGOs. The Committee considered the possibility of discussing the contents of its 16 June 2014 letter to the GNSO with the GNSO during the London meeting. The 16 June letter provided an update on the progress to address the areas of the GNSO policy recommendations that conflict with GAC advice, and highlighted the GNSO Operating Procedure, which allows for modification of a GNSO policy before the Board adopts it.

      The Committee also considered recent correspondence received from governments concerning the delegation of .WINE and .VIN, and agreed on a response to be sent to the governments and the GAC.

    2. Consideration of Sensitive Strings

      The Committee engaged in a discussion concerning applications for several adult-oriented strings in the current round of the New gTLD Program, including .ADULT, .PORN, and .SEX. The applications propose to serve the same sector as the .XXX sponsored TLD. Staff noted that the applications were not the subject of GAC advice, or any special safeguards, other than the safeguards that are applicable to all new gTLDs. The Committee considered how the safeguards in the new gTLD Program compare to the safeguards that were included in the .XXX Registry Agreement. The Committee requested staff prepare additional briefing materials, and agreed to discuss the matter further at a subsequent meeting.

    3. Name Collision Framework

      Ram Mohan was invited by the Committee to join its discussion of agenda item 2.c regarding name collisions. Ram briefed the Committee on the Security and Stability Advisory Committee's (SSAC) SAC066 Report. SAC066 is a comment on the Draft Phase One Report on Mitigating the Risks of DNS Namespace Collisions prepared by JAS Global Advisors, which was commissioned by ICANN to study namespace collisions and provide a comprehensive approach to reducing current and future collisions. The Committee continued its discussion regarding the progress made to develop a framework to address collision occurrences between new gTLDs and existing private uses of the same strings.

      Ram provided a comprehensive overview of the operational and strategic recommendations in SAC066, and the differences between the recommendations in the JAS report and the SSAC's recommendations. As part of its discussion, the Committee considered the SSAC's recommendations regarding accommodating an IPv6 solution as part of the name collision framework, and using a honeypot as the notification system to alert affected parties of name collisions. Ram highlighted the tradeoffs presented in the SSAC report between using the honeypot approach instead of the special loopback IP address recommended in the JAS report. Ram also explained the SSAC's recommendation on the standard that should be used to trigger an emergency response as a result of a name collision issue.

      Francisco Arias engaged in a discussion with the Committee about the proposed Name Collision Management Framework, which provides a comprehensive framework to address name collisions. Francisco noted that the proposed Name Collision Management Framework takes into account the advice offered by SSAC, comments from the public comment forum, and the advice of other experts and stakeholders, including the recommendations from JAS. Francisco highlighted the elements of the proposed Name Collision Management Framework that would be implemented by registry operators, and those that would be implemented by ICANN.

      Akram Attallah provided an overview of the proposed next steps given the publication of SAC066 and the final JAS report, noting that the proposed Name Collision Management Framework would be discussed with the community during the ICANN meeting in London as well as the Board Risk Committee. Ray Plzak noted that there might be broader policy matters implicated by the name collision issue and these matters should be appropriately put to the policy development process. Mike Silber also noted that the issue of name collisions is not limited to the new gTLD namespace and that additional discussion is needed on the appropriate approach to address the issue using a cross-community approach.

      Akram reported that staff would present the Committee with a final recommendation for the Name Collision Management Framework after additional discussion and feedback from the community during the ICANN meeting in London, and additional discussions with the Board Risk Committee.

      Ram Mohan left the meeting at the conclusion of the discussion of this agenda item.

    4. New gTLD Program Financial Update

      The Committee did not consider this agenda item.


      The Chair called the meeting to a close.

Published on 9 September 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"""" is not an IDN."