Skip to main content
Resources

Preliminary Report | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board

Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board.

Note: This has not been approved by the Board and does not constitute minutes but does provide a preliminary attempt setting forth the unapproved reporting of the resolutions from that meeting. Details on voting and abstentions will be provided in the Minutes, when approved at a future meeting.

NOTE ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDED WITHIN PRELIMINARY REPORT – ON RATIONALES – Where available, a draft Rationale for each of the Board's actions is presented under the associated Resolution. A draft Rationale is not final until approved with the minutes of the Board meeting.

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held telphonically on 12 December 2019 at 21:00 UTC.

Maarten Botterman, Chair, promptly called the meeting to order.

In addition to the Chair, the following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Becky Burr, Ron da Silva, Avri Doria, Rafael Lito Ibarra, Danko Jevtović, Akinori Maemura, Göran Marby (President and CEO), Ihab Osman, Nigel Roberts, León Sánchez (Vice Chair), and Tripti Sinha.

The following Director sent their apologies: Sarah Deutsch, Chris Disspain, Mandla Msimang, and Matthew Shears.

The following Board Liaisons participated in all or part of the meeting: Harald Alvestrand (IETF Liaison), Manal Ismail (GAC Liaison), and Kaveh Ranjbar (RSSAC Liaison).

The following Board Liaisons sent their apologies: Merike Käo (SSAC Liaison).

Secretary: John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary).

The following ICANN Executives and Staff participated in all or part of the meeting: Susanna Bennett (SVP, Chief Operations Officer), Xavier Calvez (Chief Financial Officer), Franco Carrasco (Board Operations Specialist), Mandy Carver (Senior Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Engagement), James Caulfield (VP, Risk Management), Sally Costerton (Sr Advisor to President & SVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement), Sam Eisner (Deputy General Counsel), Casandra Furey (Associate General Counsel), Daniel Halloran (Deputy General Counsel & Chief Data Protection Officer), Jamie Hedlund (SVP, Contractual Compliance & Consumer Safeguard), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Aaron Jimenez (Board Operations Specialist), Karen Lentz (Director, Operations & Policy Research), Cyrus Namazi (Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division), David Olive (Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support), Wendy Profit (Senior Manager, Board Operations), Erika Randall (Associate General Counsel), Jennifer Scott (Senior Counsel), Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel), Theresa Swinehart (Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives), and Gina Villavicencio (SVP, Global Human Resources).

  1. Main Agenda:
    1. Approval of Minutes 
    2. Consideration of Reconsideration Request 19-3: .ORG renewal
  2. Executive Session – Confidential:
    1. Review of Board Compensation Committee's Recommendation Re: CEO Compensation for FY20 At-Risk

 

  1. Main Agenda:

    1. Approval of Minutes

      The Chair opened the meeting and introduced the proposed resolution to adopt the minutes of the Board's regular and organizational meetings held on 7 November 2019 in Montréal, Canada. After discussion, the Board took the following action:

      Resolved (2019.12.12.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 7 November 2019 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board and the 7 November 2019 Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board.

      All members of the Board present voted in favor of Resolution 2019.12.12.01. Four members of the Board were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried.

    2. Consideration of Reconsideration Request 19-3: .ORG renewal

      The Vice Chair introduced the agenda item and provided an overview of the claims made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in Reconsideration Request 19-3. The EFF challenged ICANN org's renewal of the registry agreement with Public Interest Registry (PIR) to operate the .ORG registry. Members of ICANN org briefed the Board on the evaluation of the claims in the Reconsideration Request, which included a discussion about the Proposed Determination on the Reconsideration Request issued by the Board on 3 November 2019, and the arguments raised by EFF in its rebuttal to the Proposed Determination.

      The Board engaged in a discussion about the Reconsideration Request, which included discussion about the points raised by the EFF in its rebuttal and the oral presentation to the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC). Board members asked questions about the standards in the Bylaws for reconsideration with respect to a claim that the Board or ICANN Staff action was taken without consideration of material information. It was noted that the Requestor would have to show that the action was taken without consideration of material information available at the time of action or refusal to act.

      One Board member stated that they would not support the BAMC's recommendation to adopt a Final Determination denying reconsideration.  The Board member explained that upon review of the arguments presented in the EFF's rebuttal, they were concerned that including the requirements to implement the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS) in the renewal registry agreement as a result of bilateral negotiations while there is an ongoing consensus policy development process (PDP) about rights protection mechanisms seems to run counter to the bottom-up, multistakeholder process.

      Members of ICANN org provided additional background information about the timing of the initiation of the PDP concerning rights protection mechanisms, other legacy registry agreements that have been renewed and included the URS, as well as other Reconsideration Requests challenging the inclusion of the URS in renewal registry agreements for legacy gTLDs. There was also discussion about the requirements to initiate a PDP, as well as how the URS became a requirement for new gTLDs.

      Other Board members asked whether there were mechanisms other than the Reconsideration Request that could provide a potential avenue to address the inclusion of the URS in the .ORG registry agreement. ICANN org members noted that if members of the .ORG community had issues with including the URS, they could engage PIR in a discussion, and it is within any registry operator's right to propose a contract amendment for evaluation by ICANN org.

      After discussion, the Board took the following action:

      Whereas, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Requestor) filed a reconsideration request (Request 19-3) challenging ICANN organization's renewal of the Registry Agreement (RA) with Public Interest Registry (PIR) for the .ORG generic top-level domain (gTLD) (the .ORG Renewed RA) insofar as the renewal permits PIR to, "'at its election, implement additional protections of the legal rights of third parties,' unilaterally and without further consultation with existing .ORG registrants or the ICANN community" and applies the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) rules to .ORG registrants (collectively, URS RPMs);1 the Requestor claims that ICANN org's inclusion of the URS RPMs in the .ORG Renewed RA "run[s] contrary to ICANN's bylaws."2

      Whereas, the Requestor also seeks reconsideration of an alleged Board inaction insofar as the ICANN Board did not vote on the .ORG Renewed RA; the Requestor claims that the Board's failure to vote on the .ORG Renewed RA was based on the Board's consideration of inaccurate relevant information and the Board's failure to consider material information.3

      Whereas, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) previously determined that Request 19-3 is sufficiently stated and sent Request 19-3 to the Ombudsman for consideration in accordance with Article 4, Section 4.2(j) and (k) of the ICANN Bylaws.

      Whereas, the Ombudsman concluded that the selection of terms to include in RAs is "ICANN org's choice to make as directed by the Board—and as such, the actions of the Staff, acting with the authority vested in the CEO by the Bylaws and the Board, do not merit any kind of recommendation from me to the BAMC or the Board under [Request] 19-3."4 The Ombudsman further concluded that "[i]n action or inaction, the Board did nothing improper in deciding to stay the course, so far as I can see. It heard the Community, it read the public comments (at the very least the comprehensive Staff Report summary), and in the end, it decided that the renewal terms for the Legacy gTLDs (including .org) were acceptable."5

      Whereas, the Board issued a Proposed Determination denying reconsideration because ICANN org's execution of the .ORG Renewed RA was consistent with ICANN's Bylaws, policies, and procedures. Further, the Board did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate material information by allowing ICANN Staff to execute the .ORG Renewed RA without voting on it prior to execution. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-03-en#1.b.)

      Whereas, the Requestor submitted a rebuttal to the Board's Proposed Determination and conducted an oral presentation to the BAMC.6

      Whereas, the BAMC has carefully considered the merits of Request 19-3 and all relevant materials, including the Requestor's rebuttal and oral presentation, and has recommended that the Board adopt a Final Determination denying reconsideration on the basis that ICANN org's execution of the .ORG Renewed RA did not contradict ICANN's Bylaws, policies, or procedures; that ICANN Staff did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate relevant information in executing the Agreement; that the Board did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate material information by allowing ICANN Staff to execute the .ORG Renewed RA without a formal vote by the Board.

      Resolved (2019.12.12.02), the Board adopts the Final Determination on Reconsideration Request 19-3.

      Eleven members of the Board voted in favor of Resolution 2019.12.12.02. One member of the Board voted against the Resolution. Four members of the Board were unavailable to vote on the Resolution. The Resolution carried.

      Rationale for Resolution 2019.12.12.02

      1. Brief Summary and Recommendation

        The full factual background is set forth in the Final Determination on Reconsideration Request 19-3, which is incorporated here.

        On 3 November 2019, the Board evaluated Request 19-3 and all relevant materials, and issued a Proposed Determination denying reconsideration because ICANN org's execution of the .ORG Renewed RA was consistent with ICANN's Bylaws, policies, and procedures and because the Board did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate material information by allowing ICANN Staff to execute the .ORG Renewed RA without a formal vote by the Board. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-03-en#1.b.)

        On 18 November 2019, the Requestor submitted a rebuttal to the Proposed Determination (Rebuttal), pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of ICANN's Bylaws.

        On 25 November 2019, the Requestor made an oral telephonic presentation to the BAMC,7 reiterating the arguments made in its Request and Rebuttal, and additionally suggesting that ICANN Staff may have been aware of the sale of PIR before 30 June 2019, but failed to consider the information in renewing the .ORG Renewed RA.8

        On 3 December 2019, the BAMC considered Request 19-3 and all relevant materials, including the Requestor's rebuttal and oral presentation, and recommended that the Board adopt a Final Recommendation to deny reconsideration because: (1) ICANN org's execution of the .ORG Renewed RA did not contradict ICANN's Bylaws, policies, or procedures; (2) ICANN Staff did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate relevant information in executing the Agreement; (3) the Board did not fail to consider material information or rely on false or inaccurate material information by allowing ICANN Staff to execute the .ORG Renewed RA without a formal vote by the Board. (See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-bamc-action-proposed-final-determination-03dec19-en.pdf.)

        The Board has considered the BAMC's recommendation, as well as all relevant materials for Request 19-3, and concludes that Request 19-3 is denied and that no further action be taken in response to the Request for the reasons set forth in the Final Determination.

      2. Analysis and Rationale

        1. The Requestor's Arguments Concerning the Merits of the URS Do Not Support Reconsideration.

          The Requestor's claims concerning the merits of the URS are not supported and therefore do not warrant reconsideration. ICANN org carefully considered its renewal options for the .ORG Registry and the public comments, including the Requestor's opposition to incorporating the URS, before deciding to proceed with migrating the .ORG Registry to the Base RA (and employing the URS). The Requestor also has not shown that it is unreasonable to employ URS in the .ORG Renewed RA. As discussed in detail in the Final Determination, the URS was developed and adopted into the Base RA after extensive community input, including review by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. Specifically, the URS was recommended by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) as a mandatory rights protection mechanism for all new gTLDs from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. The GNSO was asked to provide its view on whether certain proposed rights protection mechanisms (including the URS) were consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs and were the appropriate and effective option for achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives. The GNSO concluded that the URS was not inconsistent with any of its existing policy recommendations. The URS has not been adopted as a Consensus Policy and ICANN has no ability to make it mandatory for any TLDs other than those delegated as a result of the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. As a result, when considering a similar challenge to migrating legacy gTLD RAs to the Base RA during the renewal process, the Board concluded that including the URS RPMs was not inconsistent with ICANN Bylaws or established policies or procedures.

          There is no support for the Requestor's assertion that the URS is "ill equipped" for issues likely to arise involving .ORG registrants. The Requestor also argues in its Rebuttal that "the URS was developed in response to a very specific situation and was not intended for more complicated cases." The Requestor has not shown that these "more complicated cases" are unique to .ORG registrants. They are not. The Requestor implies that URS is the sole RPM applicable to .ORG. But as discussed below, all registrars must employ the UDRP. The URS does not replace the UDRP; it supplements it. The Requestor has not shown that including the URS among the RPMs applicable to .ORG registrants contradicts any established ICANN policy or procedure. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Final Determination, reconsideration is not warranted.

        2. ICANN org's Execution of the .ORG Renewed RA Was Consistent With ICANN's Bylaws.

          There is no evidence to support the Requestor's claim that the execution of the .ORG Renewed RA violated ICANN's Mission, Commitments, and Core Values, because it did not. As discussed in further detail in the Final Determination, which is incorporated herein, ICANN org's action was consistent with its Commitment to "ensure that those entities are most affected can assist in the policy development process." The Requestor asserts that "bilateral negotiations are not a sufficient substitute for multistakeholder policy development"9 and that substantive changes to the .ORG RA "should be initiated, if at all, through the multistakeholder policy development process, not bilateral negotiations between a registry operator and ICANN staff."10

          The multistakeholder model is an important mechanism for ICANN's policy development. But no ICANN Bylaws provision, policy, or procedure requires that every "substantive change" to the .ORG RA or other new or legacy gTLD RAs must result from the multistakeholder policy development process. Such a requirement would eliminate ICANN's and the Registry Operators' ability to negotiate the terms of the RAs.

          Although all new gTLD registry operators must adopt the Base RA (but may request deviations from it), no consensus policy requires a legacy registry operator to adopt the Base RA. All RAs include a presumptive right of renewal clause. This clause provides a registry operator the right to renew the RA at its expiration, provided the registry operator is in good standing (e.g., the registry operator does not have any uncured breaches), and subject to the terms of their presumptive renewal clauses.11 In the course of engaging with a legacy registry operator on renewing its RA, ICANN org prefers to and proposes that the registry operator adopts the Base RA that is used by new gTLDs as the starting point for the negotiations. The Base RA includes several enhancements that benefit the domain name ecosystem such as better safeguards in dealing with domain name infrastructure abuse, emergency backend support, as well as adoption of new bilaterally negotiated provisions that ICANN org and the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group conduct from time to time for updates to the form agreement, and adoption of new services (e.g., RDAP) and procedures. Although ICANN org proposes the Base RA as a starting place for the renewal discussions, because of the registry operator's presumptive right of renewal, ICANN org is not in a position to mandate the new form as a condition of renewal. If a registry operator states a strong preference for maintaining its existing legacy agreement form, ICANN org would accommodate such a position, and has done so in at least one such instance.

          Contrary to the Requestor's assertion, the inclusion of the URS RPMs in the .ORG Renewed RA does not contravene the GNSO's policy development process and is thus not a violation of ICANN's Core Value of

          [s]eeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent.12

          The Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process Working Group (RPM PDP Working Group) has not concluded its work. Once the RPM PDP Working Group concludes its inquiry and to the extent the GNSO makes a community recommendations on RPMs, the Board will take the recommendations under consideration. ICANN org will then follow any Board directives and comply with any new policy set by or procedure adopted by the Board in light of those recommendations. Consistent with this approach, ICANN Staff adhered to its standard existing practice by negotiating with PIR to renew the RA pursuant to the Base RA, which includes the URS. The inclusion of the URS RPMs in the .ORG Renewed RA resulted from bilateral negotiations between PIR and ICANN organization. PIR was free to elect not to include the URS RPMs in the renewed agreement, but it did not do so. The Requestor presents no evidence demonstrating that PIR objected to the inclusion of the URS RPMs in the .ORG Renewed RA. As such, there is no evidence that the voluntary inclusion of the URS RPMs into the .ORG Renewed RA in any way contravenes the work of the RPM PDP Working Group. The existence of the RPM PDP Working Group is not, in itself, grounds for reconsidering Staff's action.

          The Board further concludes that ICANN org's decision to include the URS RPMs in the .ORG Renewed RA was consistent with its Commitment to seek public input and act for the public benefit, and its Core Value of seeking broad participation. ICANN org sought broad participation, including public comment, and considered each of the comments submitted during the public comment period. ICANN Staff presented and discussed the public comments and "key issues raised in the public comment process and correspondence"—including the URS RPMs—with the Board before executing the .ORG Renewed RA. That ICANN org ultimately decided to include the URS RPMs in the bilaterally negotiated Renewed .ORG RA despite public comments opposing this approach does not "exclude[]" the voice of registrants from the RA renewal process or otherwise demonstrate that ICANN org failed to act for the public benefit. ICANN Staff's careful consideration of the public comments—in its Report of Public Comments and discussion with the Board —demonstrate the exact opposite, namely that the propriety of the URS RPMs and the other aspects of the Base RA for .ORG were carefully considered. The Requestor has not demonstrated that ICANN Staff failed to seek or support broad participation, ascertain the global public interest, or act for the public benefit. To the contrary, ICANN org's transparent processes reflect the Staff's continuous efforts to ascertain and pursue the global public interest by migrating the legacy gTLDs to the Base RA.

        3. The Board Considered All Material Information And Did Not Rely On False Or Inaccurate Relevant Information.

          As discussed in further detail in the Final Determination, which is incorporated herein, the Board considered all material information and did not rely on false or inaccurate information by allowing ICANN Staff to execute the .ORG Renewed RA without voting on it prior to execution. The Requestor provides no evidence to the contrary.

        4. The Rebuttal Does Not Raise Arguments or Facts that Support Reconsideration.

          The Requestor makes four arguments in its Rebuttal. The Requestor also asserted during its oral presentation that ICANN Staff may have been aware of the sale of PIR before 30 June 2019, but failed to consider the information in renewing the .ORG Renewed RA.13 None of these arguments support reconsideration. As discussed in further detail in the Final Determination, the Requestor's Rebuttal reiterates the arguments made in its Request that the Board addressed in the Proposed Determination. The Requestor's responses to the Proposed Determination rely on the assumption that legacy gTLDs should be treated differently than new gTLDs and should not migrate to the Base RA; Requestor still offers no evidence supporting this argument, and is incorrect, as demonstrated by the legacy gTLDs that have migrated to the Base RA over the past several years.

          With respect to the Requestor's claim that the sale of PIR to private equity firm Ethos Capital "invites additional scrutiny," the Board concludes that PIR's corporate structure is not relevant to Request 19-3. Request 19-3 concerns the 30 June 2019 renewal of the .ORG RA and must be evaluated in accordance with the grounds for reconsideration as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws. The recent acquisition of PIR, which was announced more than four months after the execution of the .ORG Renewed RA, did not impact ICANN Staff's determination that ICANN's Mission and Core Values were best served by migrating the .ORG RA to the Base RA. Request 19-3 is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging Ethos Capital's acquisition of PIR. The recently announced acquisition of PIR, the current .ORG registry operator, and the results of that transaction is something that ICANN organization will be evaluating as part of its normal process in such circumstances.

          The Requestor's assertion that ICANN Staff and/or the Board failed to consider material information because it may have known about—but not considered— the contemplated sale of PIR prior to execution of the .ORG Renewed RA on 30 June 2019 does not support reconsideration because neither ICANN Staff or the Board were aware of the transaction before entering into the .ORG Renewed RA. In order to state a proper reconsideration request, the Requestor would have to show that the ICANN Staff action was taken without consideration of material information available "for the Board's or Staff's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act."14 Since neither the Board nor ICANN Staff were aware of the PIR acquisition when the decision to renew the .ORG RA was made, there was no material information not considered, and therefore this is not a proper basis for reconsideration.

          This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN is accountable to the community for operating within the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and other established procedures. This accountability includes having a process in place by which a person or entity materially affected by an action of the ICANN Board or Staff may request reconsideration of that action or inaction by the Board.

          This action should have no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

          This decision is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

  2. Executive Session – Confidential:

    The Board entered a confidential session. The Board undertook the following actions during its confidential session:

    1. Review of Board Compensation Committee's Recommendation Re: CEO Compensation for FY20 At-Risk

      Whereas, each Board member has confirmed that he/she does not have a conflict of interest with respect to establishing the amount of payment to the President and CEO for the first half of FY20 at-risk compensation component.

      Whereas, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment to the President and CEO for the first half of his FY20 SR2 at-risk compensation.

      Resolved (2019.12.12.03), the Board hereby approves a payment to the President and CEO for his annual at-risk compensation component for the first half of FY20.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2019.12.12.03

      When the President and CEO was hired, he was offered a base salary, plus an at-risk component of his compensation package. This same structure exists today. Consistent with all personnel with the ICANN organization, the President and CEO is to be evaluated against specific goals, which the President and CEO sets in coordination with the Compensation Committee and the Board.

      The President and CEO provided to the Compensation Committee his self-assessment of his mid-year achievements towards his FY20 goals. After reviewing, the Compensation Committee discussed and agreed with the President and CEO's self-assessment. Following discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended that the Board approve payment to the President and CEO for his at-risk compensation for the first half of FY20. The Board agrees with the Compensation Committee's recommendation.

      Taking this decision is in furtherance of ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest in that it helps ensure that President and CEO is sufficiently compensated in line with his performance in furtherance of the Mission, and which reflects that his goals are consistent with ICANN's Strategic and Operating plans.

      While the decision to pay the President and CEO his at-risk compensation for the first half of FY20 will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, it is an impact that was contemplated in the FY20 budget. This decision will not have an impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Published on 23 December 2019


1 Request 19-3, § 3, at Pg. 2.

2 Id., § 8, at Pg. 5.

3 Id., § 8, at Pgs. 8-9.

4 Evaluation by the ICANN Ombudsman of Request for Reconsideration 19-3, at Pg. 3, 7 September 2019, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-evaluation-icann-ombudsman-request-07sep19-en.pdf.

5 Id., at Pg. 6.

6 The BAMC's membership changed on 7 November 2019.

7 The BAMC's membership changed on 7 November 2019. See Proposed Determination on Request 19-3, at Pg. 1 n.1.

8 Requestor's Presentation Materials for Oral Presentation to the BAMC, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-requestor-presentation-redacted-25nov19-en.pdf.

9 Request 19-3, § 8, at Pg. 7.

10 Id. § 6, at Pg. 3.

11 See, e.g., .ORG 2013 RA, Art. 4, § 4.2, https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/org-agmt-html-2013-09-12-en.

12 Request 19-3, § 8, at Pgs. 5-6.

13 Requestor's Presentation Materials for Oral Presentation to the BAMC, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-requestor-presentation-redacted-25nov19-en.pdf.

14 See Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.2(c)(ii).

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."