Skip to main content

Preliminary Report for Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors

[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board]

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference on 11 September 2007. Chairman Vinton Cerf called the meeting to order at 8.00 P.M. U.S. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).

The following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo Beca, Chairman Vinton G. Cerf, Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate Thrush, Vice Chairman Roberto Gaetano, Demi Getschko, Steven Goldstein, Joichi Ito, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Njeri Rionge, Vanda Scartezini, President and CEO Paul Twomey, Bruce Tonkin, and, David Wodelet. The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Steve Crocker, SSAC Liaison; Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison and Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC Liaison. The following Board Members and Liaisons were not present on the call: Vittorio Bertola, Francisco da Silva, and Rita Rodin

The following staff participated in part or all of the meeting: John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer; Paul Levins, Executive Officer and Vice President, Corporate Affairs; Kevin Wilson, Chief Financial Officer; Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Business Operations; Barbara Roseman, Operations Manager, IANA; Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy Development; Liz Gasster, GNSO Policy Support; David Conrad, General Manager, IANA Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations; and Kim Davies, IANA Technical Liaison.

The Board discussed and took action on the following matters:

Approval of Board Minutes from Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, 14 August 2007

The Chair introduced the Board minutes from the meeting of 14 August, which had been circulated to the Board earlier.

Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded to adopt the Board minutes of 14 august 2007 without correction.

Resolved (07.69), the minutes of the Board Meeting of 14 August 2007 are approved.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Approval for public comment posting of the ICANN Board Review Terms of Reference

Vint Cerf introduced the topic and Paul Levins provided background on the Board Governance Committee and full Board’s involvement and comments on the proposed draft. Steve Goldstein noted that most of the issues that he had raised previously have been included. Steve Goldstein further asked if the accountability of the ICANN Corporation itself is to be rated or evaluated differently from the accountability of the Board and are the two issues severable?

The Chair felt that the performance/accountability of the Board and the organization are not identical. It’s an open question of whether we have in our bylaws to review the organization itself. John Jeffrey advised that the bylaws-mandated reviews did not include the board itself or a review of the entire organization but that there was nothing to preclude the Board from taking a broad scope approach. Steve Goldstein considered that if the Board is ultimately responsible for the organization of ICANN then the performance/accountability of ICANN as an organization is not severable from performance/accountability of Board. The Chair agreed that we might want to take into account more than the Board performance/accountability and this is a worthwhile issue to be discussed. The performance/accountability of the organization as a whole should be looked into and the issue should come back to the Board for discussion at another meeting.

Peter Dengate Thrush moved to approve the publication of the Board Review Terms of Reference for public comment and Bruce Tonkin seconded this motion.

Resolved, (07.70) that the proposed Terms of Reference for a review of the Board of Directors should be posted for public review and comment, and that those comments should be reviewed and considered before adopting those Terms of Reference.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Nominating Committee Chairman

Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the Board Governance Committee, advised that seven candidates have been evaluated for the position of the Chair of the Nominating Committee. As part of the process this year, potential candidates were asked to provide a CV and respond to a number of criteria associated with the role. Some applicants withdrew from the process for various reasons. A short list of four candidates emerged and the Committee discussed these via email and ranked people. The Committee’s unanimous recommendation is to propose a resolution that Hagen Hultzsch be appointed as the Chair of the Nominating Committee.

The Chair accepted this as a motion to approve Hagen Hultzsch as the Nominating Committee Chair as a recommendation of the Board Governance Committee. Peter Dengate Thrush seconded this motion.

Resolved (07.71), that Hagen Hultzsch is appointed as Chair of the 2008 Nominating Committee, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2008, or until his earlier resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Peter Dengate Thrush added that he felt the BGC had done very much better than had been done in the past by setting out a job specification for the first time and sending this to potential candidates. He felt they have a very good candidate with a good understanding about what is required.

Steve Goldstein noted that it is a very onerous job and it reflects well on our status that so many people were interested.

It was agreed that Roberto would inform Hagen of the Board’s decision, and there should be a formal communication as well.

Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation regarding the Academic Representative to the next Nominating Committee

Robert Gaetano advised that the Board Governance Committee is recommending the return of Jose Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the academic and research representative to the Nominating Committee. George Sadowsky’s views were sought and excellent feedback was received about Jose’s contribution to the Nominating Committee so no further research was undertaken to find alternative candidates. Jose Luiz has agreed to serve a second term.

The Chair moved a motion to approve the recommended candidate to serve as the academic representative and Vanda Scartezini seconded the motion.

Resolved (07.72) that the Board the appointment, for a second term, of Jose Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the 2008 Nominating Committee Academic Representative.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Board Governance Committee's Update on Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Ethics

Roberto Gaetano advised that the BGC has only recently started the discussions on this issue and not a lot of progress has been made. He is personally collecting all the material from previous discussions that have been undertaken by the BGC, including prior to his tenure on this committee. It is hoped that the BGC will be able to make a proposal by the LA meeting, at least a draft and will discuss with General Counsel the extent to which the document should be posted for public comment

The Chair felt it is a matter of public interest and there should be the opportunity for discussion and listening to what people have to say and adoption at a later time.

Board Meetings Committee’s Recommendations regarding ICANN Meeting Site

Susan Crawford advised that four proposals had been received for ICANN’s meeting in Asia Pacific in February 2008: Dubai, Delhi, Sydney and Hong Kong and the meetings committee is recommending Delhi. The Delhi proposal has a high level of government support and this bid has addressed hotel availability that was a concern in a bid received previously from India and meets ICANN’s needs. The other proposals had venue issues including in one instance, an inability to reserve a venue, but was on a wait list. There will be disappointed bidders and a process for managing multiple bids is being looked into. Susan suggested that Dubai should be considered for a regional event in 2008. The meetings committee is also having discussions about the next Asia Pacific meeting in 2009 and considering whether they should take a special approach given the three unsuccessful bids in this round.

Susan proposed the Board acknowledge the Committee’s choice of Delhi for February 2008, and that there be a major regional meeting in Dubai in 2008.

The Chair moved the motion to adopt the Meetings Committee recommendation of Delhi and Steve Goldstein seconded this resolution.

Resolved (07.73), the Board accepts the recommendation of the Meeting’s Committee and approves Delhi as the venue for the ICANN Meeting in February 2008, and directs staff to move forward with negotiations and plans for that ICANN Meeting.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Raimundo Beca abstained. Raimundo Beca explained his abstention by raising concerns that the Delhi meeting will be during holiday time in his country and many Southern Hemisphere/Latin American countries. He was concerned that the Board approves the place but not the timing. Susan Crawford advised that the timing was a result of avoiding other major meetings scheduled for that time, including the IETF.

The Chair asked that the Meetings Committee again consider the balancing of these considerations in future decisions.

With regard to the second issue, to approve the motion of a regional meeting in Dubai, the Chair was unsure what kind of commitment was being sought.

Susan Crawford advised that the motion was no more than an acknowledgment from the Board; such meetings have progressed without Board approval previously.

Peter Dengate Thrush noted that he didn’t understand what the concept of an ICANN regional meeting. Susan Crawford advised that the model talked about is that used in Eastern Europe and Latin America where there is an occasion to get together registrars, GAC representatives or meeting to discuss ICANN topics, with a level of ICANN support.

The Chair suggested that the Board should focus attention on the regional meeting concept, the definition of which is unsettled. He asked the Meetings Committee to review the idea and bring back to the Board more information. Susan Crawford agreed and noted that these meetings have taken place in the past on a somewhat ad-hoc basis.

Paul Twomey advised that there is a regional meeting taking place in Taipei and is a meeting that has similarities to the Dubai concept. There is a keenness to host what will be a technical workshop on IDNs, with one of the differences being there is no formal meeting of GAC. The Strategic Plan consultations has bought the concept of regional meetings up in feedback and this is reflected in the Issues Paper on the Strategic Plan which was posted within the 24 hours prior to this board meeting.

The Chair considered that some form of formalization, structure and planning would be appropriate for such meetings and the Meetings Committee should review this issue.

Raimundo Beca supported the regional meeting idea, noting that the LACNIC/LACTLD meetings are a very popular event. The Chair suggested that perhaps the regional meetings could be done in conjunction with another regional activity such as RIRs or other bodies.

Paul Levins advised that the unsuccessful applicants would be contacted prior to the posting of the Board minutes.

Delegation of the .KP ( North Korea) Domain

Kim Davies updated the board on the delegation request and presented the staff report and recommendation. The evaluation concluded that the delegation met the basic criteria to support a delegation request to the Korea Computer Center.

Steve Goldstein moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the delegation of .KP to Korea Computer Center,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities.

It is hereby resolved (07.74), that the proposed delegation of the .KP domain to Korea Computer Center is approved,

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Delegation of the .ME ( Montenegro) Domain
Delegation of the .RS ( Serbia) Domain
Redelegation of the .YU (former Yugoslavia) Domain

Kim Davies advised that the delegation of .ME ( Montenegro) and .RS ( Serbia) and the redelegation of .YU ( Yugoslavia) were interrelated. At the time that Serbia and Montenegro became new countries, the ISO 3166-1list was altered to give the two countries individual codes .RS and .ME respectively. To date, the countries covered have been using the .YU domain. The YU code is no longer in the ISO 3166-1 list and has been replaced with .ME and .RS and as such should be decommissioned in a responsible way. The transition plan from .YU to .RS and .ME involves an MOU between the two entities and would see that .YU is assigned to the proposed .RS sponsoring organization, which is effectively the same operator as today. They would act as caretaker for .YU for two years to allow for a stable transition. ICANN’s proposed resolution language is consistent with this plan however a three-year transition period is proposed to allow for contingencies. The proposed resolutions support the two new delegations and acknowledge the two parties involved in de-commissioning of the .YU domain, and state it is to be retired in three years time.

In addition to explaining the ICANN evaluation of the delegation applications, the board was also advised of last-minute correspondence IANA had received in relation to the delegation of the .ME domain.

Steve Goldstein asked if there is any provision in the agreement to restrict new registrations in .YU. Kim Davies advised that he would have to check to be certain, but as soon as new registrations are allowed in .RS and .ME it was his understanding that it would not be possible to register new domains in .YU.

Steve Goldstein asked why the preference for a three-year transition rather than two. Kim Davies advised they didn’t want to propose something that was too aggressive. The applicants had proposed a two-year transition period, but the Board could consider a different length.

The Chair proposed that the language in the resolution could be changed to be up to and no more than three years.

Steve Crocker acknowledged that some transitions have taken a long time. An additional suggestion would be to ask for regular reports with metrics measuring progress towards the outcome.

Kim Davies noted that the resolution proposed does suggest that the .YU registry report every 6 months to ICANN Staff on progress. The proposed resolution also makes it clear the domain must be removed no later than 2010, which was considered a responsible timeframe that was neither too aggressive, nor unnecessarily prolonged. If the community felt it could transition quicker there is nothing to stop that from happening.

Paul Twomey suggested that the wording be slightly amended asking that they report progress against appropriate metrics.

There were no objections to the suggested amendments.

Dave Wodelet asked if it mattered if they take till 2008, 2009 or even 2010 and the Chair responded that we do want a certain end date.

Kim Davies advised that there is no strong precedent for how long transition will take from one to the other. There have only been a small number of transitions of country codes in the history of ccTLDs. In trying to determine what they considered a reasonable timeframe for transition the closest comparable situation that IANA was aware of is when telephone-numbering systems change. These transitions generally take place in one-to-two years.

The Chair noted that the language proposed by Paul Twomey seems acceptable, an alternative to an extra year would be to stick with two years to 2009 and if the party needs more time they could come back and explain why, which may be the best option. Putting in a two-year timeframe provides them with leverage to help their community to promptly perform the transition. The Chair recommended the alternative on the basis it was made clear to them that if they have a problem with two years they can come back with an explanation to ICANN as to why they need more time.

Susan Crawford noted that she understands the direction and appreciates the conservative approach, but asked what mechanism should be used if the transition moves too slowly.

The Chair reflected that if they come back and have a reasonable explanation, then this should be okay. He believed you would help them with a shorter deadline as they can point to that as a mandate to move ahead and transition to other the domain.

Janis Karklins noted that human nature suggests they will take as much time as they are given for transitioning. He suggested that the resolution should include a point that ICANN Staff should keep the Board informed of the progress of the transition.

In summation, the Chair suggested that the Board approves all three requests, and that ICANN Staff is expected to keep the Board informed on the retirement of .YU domain. Paul Twomey added that they communicate according to appropriate metrics.

Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded the following resolution:

Delegation of .ME

Whereas, the .ME top-level domain is the designated country-code for

Montenegro ,

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .ME to the Government of Montenegro,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities,

Resolved (07.75), that the proposed delegation of the .ME domain to the Government of Montenegro is approved.

Delegation of .RS

Whereas, the .RS top-level domain is the designated country-code for Serbia,

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .RS to the Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the proposed delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global Internet communities,

Resolved (07.76), that the proposed delegation of the .RS domain to the Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names is approved.

Redelegation of .YU

Whereas, the .YU top-level domain is currently used by the citizens of both Serbia and Montenegro,

Whereas, ICANN has delegated the .RS domain for use in Serbia, and the .ME domain for use in Montenegro,

Whereas, the ISO 3166-1 standard has removed the “YU” code, and the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency recommends its use be discontinued,

Whereas, ICANN is not responsible for deciding what is or is not a country, and adheres to the ISO 3166-1 standard for guidance on when to add, modify and remove country-code top-level domains,

Whereas, there is a transition plan to move registrations in .YU to the new domains .RS and .ME, with the operator of .RS acting as the temporary caretaker of .YU until the transition is complete,

Resolved (07.77), that the .YU domain be redelegated to the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain Names in a temporary caretaker capacity.

Resolved (07.78), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain Names be instructed to report their progress on decommissioning the .YU domain every six months to ICANN against a relevant set of metrics.

Resolved (07.79), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain Names, and the Government of Montenegro, work to complete the transition from the .YU domain to the .RS and .ME domains, so that it may be removed from the DNS root zone no later than 30 September 2009.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and all three motions were approved by a vote of all members present 13-0, with one abstention from Peter Dengate Thrush.

Peter Dengate Thrush explained that his reservation was associated with his belief that such policy decisions concerning delegation should rest with the ccNSO as specifically provided under the bylaws. He noted that he has raised this issue on a number of occasions suggesting that this matter should be referred to the ccNSO but to no avail.

The Chair noted that these practices have been in existence prior to the formation of the ccNSO, and that if policy is required in this area that the ccNSO work on a policy proposal, that might be properly considered.

Status Report on discussions with the UPU regarding .POST and renewal agreements for .AERO and .MUSEUM

Kurt Pritz advised that there are issues in common with all the ongoing sTLD negotiations (.MUSEUM, .AERO, and .POST). In some cases negotiations are close to conclusion and in other cases, additional negotiation is required. These issues have come up in other recent registry negotiations and these issues have been themes for discussion across the gTLD community.

First, registries are seeking limitations to the requirement to comply with ICANN consensus policies and have to follow and comply with consensus policies. The second issue is the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars to register names in gTLD registries. The third issue is the request for a clause in the agreement requiring indemnification by ICANN to registries for costs associated with compliance to consensus policies. This last clause was included in old gTLD agreements but was eliminated in all new gTLD (including sTLD) agreements. Indemnification was seen as necessary in early days of gTLD development but as the market and registries have matured, it has become apparent that this form of indemnification is not necessary or desirable in the future development of the DNS.

Steve Goldstein asked what it means to comply with consensus policies? Kurt Pritz advised that the ccNSO, GNSO or ASO are designated to recommend consensus policy to Board. When the Board approves the consensus policy, it is incorporated by reference into the gTLD agreements.

Steve Goldstein clarified that after a contract is signed these can be amended because there are new consensus policies. Kurt Pritz responded that registry agreements include a clause that requires compliance with consensus policy even when the policy is approved after the contract is executed.

Sponsored TLDs, by their definition, have significant policy making authority. So certain policy-making authority is reserved to the sponsoring organization in sTLDs. Recent sTLD agreements include requirement for compliance with consensus policy, including the process for considering new registry services – a stability and security threshold review.

As these contractual issues were raised, ICANN facilitated public discussion on each and requested public explanations of the sTLDs as to why these contract changes are important to them. It is important for the Board to understand that the public discussion will not necessarily lead to agreement across constituency groups and the Board may be left to decide whether certain agreement terms should be approved in the face of criticism.

Kurt then reviewed the negotiating status on each of the registries, as follows:

Negotiation status – .MUSEUM: This negotiation is complete, a second version of the agreement is posted for public comment. The controversial issue was that .MUSEUM asked to “self-register” 5000 names. The reason was that .MUSEUM wished to replace the functionality of their “wildcard” that .MUSEUM was giving up in this negotiation. After registrar constituency criticism, Cary Karp met with the registrar constituency in Lisbon. Through that discussion, the contract language evolved to what is posted, including a reduction in the number of names to 4000. The proposed new language was posted on 31 August 2007 and thus far, there has been no comment from the registrar community, which has been primary in its opposition. ICANN Staff anticipates asking the Board to approve the agreement at the 16 October 2007 Board Meeting.

Negotiation status – .AERO: Many contractual issues have been resolved, however, some core issues remain uncompleted. The sponsor SITA states that, in the proposed agreement, the language does not adequately protect the sponsor’s delegated policy making authority. They have requested a significant exemption from consensus policy compliance. SITA also requested that the old indemnification clause remain in their contract even thought the clause in other agreements has been eliminated. They claim they should not be responsible for costs arising from ICANN actions. Finally, they wish to eliminate the clause present in other agreements that prohibits registries from owning a 15% interest in a gTLD registrar. Their reason is, that in their large organization, a registrar may be acquired without notice to the sponsoring organization.

While negotiations are amicable, ICANN Staff and SITA disagree on the approach to these three core issues. Staff continues to work for a conclusion that SITA and ICANN Staff can mutually recommend.

Negotiation status – .POST: UPU, the sponsor, has in recent months invigorated the negotiation. The issues here are similar. The UPU seeks exemption from consensus policy and to include indemnification by ICANN for certain costs to the registry. Additionally, their scheme does not plan to utilize ICANN registrars for their 300-400 primary registrations of their member states (uk.POST, for example). These requests have been based on the UPU’s special status as a U.N. organization. ICANN has posted a UPU position paper describing their business plan and model to the gTLD constituency group, which has been offered to the community for input. The UPU would like to complete negotiations before the Los Angeles ICANN Meeting, but time is running short for appropriate comment periods and the issues remain controversial.

Susan Crawford considered that in relation to the consensus policy structure, it will be important for ICANN to stick with the consensus policy model as it gives ICANN legitimacy and consistency in dealing with registries so long as the right process has been used to achieve the policy. Susan acknowledged the difficulty but concluded that it is essential that the consensus policy clause remain in the agreement. With regard to business models, she hoped it would not always be the case that ICANN-accredited registrars were to be used.

Bruce Tonkin noted that in the context of the new gTLD process where the aim is to get consistency in agreements, he is wary of considering agreements on a case-by-case basis.  The requirements to adhere to Consensus policy and use ICANN accredited registrars are covered in the proposed new gTLDs policy.  His view is that given how hard it is to develop consensus policies these should be adhered to by registries and registrars noting for example that the new gTLD process has taken two years of intensive negotiation and has been through rigorous process.  The use of registrars has been part of new gTLD discussion between registries and registrars and the general principle is that the registrar should be accredited by ICANN and should be treated equally.   There have been some discussions over whether there should continue to be restrictions on the level of ownership by a registry of a registrar, and whether a registry may also be accredited as a registrar for its TLD.   With regard to .POST and the three to four hundred names, there should be a separation between domain name allocation and domain name records maintenance. The .POST application may pre-allocate names as part of the TLD proposal; but maintenance of records could still be done by registrars .   It is likely that registrars are already maintaining other domain name records for potential .POST registrants. 

Kurt Pritz advised that the clean division between registrar and registry is based upon policy and practice and it dates from the beginning the gTLD model structure. The agreements state that a registry cannot own 15% of registrar. The discussion between the roles of registries and registrars is ongoing about how distinction can be kept and business models accommodated.

Raimundo Beca asked if the date of November 2 is definite or if it can be moved. Raimundo reflected that we should be careful not to give the UPU any favors, as they are an organization that has a history of monopoly and now there is competition. They should have to comply with the consensus policies. He noted that the UPU and the ITU have a similar history and that the ITU does not have it’s own TLD, but is registered under ITU.INT

Kurt Pritz advised regarding the November 2 date, the UPU requested ICANN Board approvals by that date so the UPU Congress can consider approving the agreement. We will make every effort to resolve all issues in time for that but have indicated that the deadline might be problematic because of the public debate around this agreement. Question was raised regarding whether the UPU could possibly consider the proposed agreement before Board approval.

Steve Goldstein noted that he was against giving special consideration on consensus, indemnity, and registrar with exception of .MUSEUM. If you look ahead to 10,000 TLDs it will be difficult to go forward without common agreement. Steve Goldstein does not want to alienate the registry community, and he does not want ICANN to indemnify the TLD sponsors against consensus policies, so if such clauses were included in these agreements, he would vote “no”.

Steve Crocker noted that he had previously reviewed this issue and that with regard to .MUSEUM and other special registries using registrars, there is not enough business for those registrars to participate. He noted that .MUSEUM has problems getting the attention of registrars. The idea was to create competition but when registrations fall below a threshold it makes the business model difficult. Its nice to have a one size fits all but this does not fit the facts of the matter. Steve indicated that if we’re going to encourage or have a system in place favorable to registries 100,000 minimum business model then we have to have the ability to use a mechanism other than a competitive registrars system.

Bruce Tonkin advised that what Steve explained registrars understand, but the concern about considering on a case by case is the use of a series of precedents and trying to look at the issue as a whole and come up with something workable and in recognition of the points made.

Steve Crocker noted that he had no problem with the framework developed to deal with those issues but considered that what we have now does not work.

Information Update on GNSO’s WHOIS Policy Development

Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has an ongoing PDP on WHOIS and at a recent GSNO Council meeting a schedule was laid out for WHOIS reports. Council will have a final vote on task force and working group reports that staff are finalizing. Staff was asked to engage in some studies on registrars and misuses, the study is also expected to review processes available today, and other studies staff is working on. An implementation assessment is being prepared on issues involved on what is referred to as the operational point of contact (OPOC) proposal. The working group report completed in March intended a point of contact in lieu of a registrant. More recently the GNSO Council established a short term working group to look at the OPOC issue, and the working group examined the roles and responsibilities of OPOC not fulfilled, legitimate interest, third party contact information should be based on registered name holder, registrants use of domain name. The working group report has some points of agreement and some of points of significant disagreement. Staff is compiling all this information for Council consideration.

Susan Crawford asked the timing for when board will get the report from the GNSO. Denise Michel advised that it is very fluid at this point in that with regard to OPOC, at one point there was strong agreement on the ability to consider OPOC proposal and the support for that proposal decreased as we got further into the detail of implementation and effects on registry and registrars became apparent. So there are many open issues and the important step is the staff development of implementation notes. The timing is unknown.

Janis Karklins recognized that the GNSO council has used words in GAC WHOIS principles recommendations for action for study on use and misuses of WHOIS data, which is appreciated by the GAC. He is happy that staff has started compiling the data and will prepare a report. He asked about the timeline for the completion of the work and what sources will be used in compiling report.

Liz Gasser confirmed that recommendations made by the GAC have been incorporated into the GNSO discussion. Staff is undertaking work to obtain information regarding the uses and potential misuses of information, the use of proxy services as it affects Whois accuracy, and Whois contractual compliance. Staff will provide additional updates on activities. There are some preparatory activities that will guide staff about additional work. Staff will be giving an update to GNSO on 4 October.

Bruce Tonkin advised that conflicting draft resolutions have been circulating on the Council list regarding next steps on the WHOIS proposals, however as registries and registrars appear to be withdrawing their support for the taskforce proposal on OPAC, as modified by proposals from the WHOIS working group, he expects Council will say they can’t reach an agreement.

The Chair asked if the parties in debate agreed accurate information is available, was who has access to the information the primary issue.

Bruce Tonkin advised that the work had stopped on accuracy until improvements were made on access control, and that  many in the GNSO believe that registrants would be more willing to provide accurate information if it was not publicly available.  The Chair suggested that maybe there is a kernel of agreement for drawing together the different sides.


Steve Goldstein moved a motion to adjourn and Roberto Gaetano seconded this motion.


Meeting closed at 10.00pm US PDT

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."