Skip to main content
Resources

Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board

  1. Consent Agenda
    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
    2. RSSAC Bylaws Amendments
    3. Hub office in Istanbul, Turkey
    4. Accountability Structures Bylaws Effective Date
    5. .CAT Cross-Ownership Removal Request
    6. Confirm Process Followed Regarding Redelegation of the .GA domain representing Gabon
    7. Change to Public Participation Committee Name
    8. SO/AC Fast-Track Budget Request
    9. Thank You Resolutions – Departing Community Members
    10. Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 46 Meeting
    11. Thank You to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of ICANN 46 Meeting
    12. Thank You to Local Hosts of ICANN 46 Meeting
  2. Main Agenda
    1. IDN Variant TLD Root LGR Procedure and User Experience Study Recommendations
    2. PIA-CC Application to Form New Constituency
    3. Any Other Business

 

  1. Consent Agenda

    1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes

      Resolved (2013.04.11.01), the Board approves the minutes of the 28 February 2013 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board.

    2. RSSAC Bylaws Amendments

      Whereas, in Resolution 2011.01.25.10, the Board approved the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) review final report implementation steps and instructed the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), in coordination with staff, to provide the Board with a final implementation plan to address the RSSAC review final recommendations and conclusions.

      Whereas, in July and August 2012, a working group of RSSAC and SIC members was formed to draft a revised RSSAC charter in order to meet the requirements of the final RSSAC review recommendations. The RSSAC Charter is set forth within the ICANN Bylaws at Article XI, Section 2.3.

      Whereas, on 4 December 2012, the SIC reviewed the proposed Bylaws revisions and recommended that the suggested changes to Article XI, Section 2.3 be posted for public comment. The Board approved the public comment posting on 20 December 2012, and the comment period was opened on 3 January 2013. No comments were received.

      Whereas, on 28 March 2013, the SIC recommended that the Board adopt the changes to Article IX, Section 2.3 of the Bylaws.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.02), the Board adopts the proposed changes to Article XI, Section 2.3 of the ICANN Bylaws that are necessary to modify the charter for the RSSAC in line with the recommendations arising out of the organizational review of the RSSAC.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.02

      These ICANN Bylaws amendments will clarify the continuing purpose of the Root Server Advisory Committee (RSSAC). They were recommended by the joint RSSAC-SIC Working Group formed to conclude the implementation of the RSSAC review WG final report: implementation steps [PDF, 448 KB], approved by the Board on 25 January 2011. The proposed Bylaws changes were posted for public comment, and no comments were received in response. The absence of public comment indicates that such amendments are desirable for the RSSAC to improve its effectiveness in the current environment. The Bylaws revisions are drafted to allow the RSSAC sufficient time to coordinate the new RSSAC member terms that are required under the Bylaws, with the first full term under the new Bylaws provision beginning on 1 July 2013.

      The approval of these Bylaws revisions is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was sought. While the approval of the Bylaws amendments has no budget implications per se, it is expected that the Bylaws revisions will induce RSSAC expenditures. Empowered by the revised Bylaws amendment, the RSSAC will contribute to strengthening the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received.

    3. Hub office in Istanbul, Turkey

      Resolved (2013.04.11.03), the President and CEO is authorized to implement either the resolutions relating to a liaison office or the resolutions relating to the branch office, which ever is deemed by the President and CEO to be more appropriate, and to open any bank accounts necessary to support the office in Turkey.

      (i) Whereas, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a legal entity duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America, having its principal place of business at 12025 E. Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California USA 90094 ("ICANN"), has decided to establish a branch office in Istanbul, Turkey ("Branch Office").

      Resolved (2013.04.11.04), David Olive, holding a United States passport numbered [REDACTED], is appointed as the representative of the Branch Office with each and every authority to act individually on behalf of the Branch Office before, including but not limited to, any and all courts, private and public institutions.

      (ii) Whereas, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a legal entity duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America, having its principal place of business at 12025 E. Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California USA 90094 ("ICANN"), has decided to establish a liaison office in Istanbul, Turkey ("Liaison Office").

      Resolved (2013.04.11.05), David Olive, [personal identification information REDACTED], is appointed as the representative of the Liaison Office with each and every authority to act individually on behalf of the Liaison Office before, including but not limited to, any and all courts, private and public institutions.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2013.04.11.03 – 2013.04.11.05

      ICANN is committed to continuing to expand its global reach and

      presence in all time zones throughout the globe. One of the key aspects of ICANN's internationalization is to establish offices in Turkey and Singapore. Another key aspect of ICANN's internationalization is to ensure that not all members of ICANN's senior management are located in the Los Angeles office. To that end, one of ICANN's officers, David Olive, has agreed to relocate to Istanbul and to be the designated branch representative.

      In order to formally establish an office in Istanbul, ICANN must register to do business in Turkey. The registration to do business in Turkey requires a specific Board resolution establishing the branch and designating the branch representative, which is why the Board has passed this resolution.

      Establishing hub office around the globe will be a positive step for the ICANN community as it will provide a broader global reach to all members of the community. There will be a fiscal impact on ICANN, which has been considered in the FY13 budget and will be taken into account when approving the FY14 budget and beyond. This resolution is not intended to have any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS except that it might provide additional coverage around the globe that could help more quickly address any security, stability or resiliency issues.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

    4. Accountability Structures Bylaws Effective Date

      Whereas, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's Recommendations 23 and 25 recommended that ICANN retain independent experts to review ICANN's accountability structures and the historical work performed on those structures.

      Whereas, ICANN convened the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP), comprised of three international experts on issues of corporate governance, accountability and international dispute resolution, which after research and review of ICANN's Reconsideration and Independent Review processes and multiple opportunities for public input, produced a report in October 2012.

      Whereas, the ASEP report was posted for public comment, along with proposed Bylaws revisions to address the recommendations within the report.

      Whereas, after ASEP and Board review and consideration of the public comment received, on 20 December 2012 the Board approved Bylaws revision to give effect to the ASEP's recommendations, and directed additional implementation work to be followed by a staff recommendation for the effective date if the revised Bylaws.

      Whereas, as contemplated within the Board resolution, and as reflected in public comment, further minor revisions are needed to the Bylaws to provide flexibility in the composition of a standing panel for the Independent Review process (IRP).

      Resolved (2013.04.11.06), the Bylaws revisions to Article IV, Section 2 (Reconsideration) and Article IV, Section 3 (Independent Review) as approved by the Board and subject to a minor amendment to address public comments regarding the composition of a standing panel for the IRP, shall be effective on 11 April 2013.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.06

      The Board's action in accepting the report of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) and approving the attendant Bylaws revisions is in furtherance of the Board's commitment to act on the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). The ASEP's work was called for in ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, and the work performed, including a review of the recommendations from the President's Strategy Committee's work on Improving Institutional Confidence, is directly aligned with the ATRT requested review.

      The adoption of the ASEP's work represents a great stride in ICANN's commitment to accountability to its community. The revised mechanisms adopted today will bring easier access to the Reconsideration and Independent Review processes through the implementation of forms, the institution of defined terms to eliminate vagueness, and the ability to bring collective requests. A new ground for Reconsideration is being added, which will enhance the ability for the community to seek to hold the Board accountable for its decisions. The revisions are geared towards instituting more predictability into the processes, and certainty in ICANN's decision making, while at the same time making it clearer when a decision is capable of being reviewed. The Bylaws as further revised also address a potential area of concern raised by the community during the public comments on this issue, regarding the ability for ICANN to maintain a standing panel for the Independent Review proceedings. If a standing panel cannot be comprised, or cannot remain comprised, the Bylaws now allow for Independent Review proceedings to go forward with individually selected panelists.

      The adoption of these recommendations will have a fiscal impact on ICANN, in that there are anticipated costs associated with maintaining a Chair of the standing panel for the Independent Review process and potential costs to retain other members of the panel. However, the recommendations are expected to result in less costly and time-consuming proceedings, which will be positive for ICANN, the community, and those seeking review under these accountability structures. The outcomes of this work are expected to have positive impacts on ICANN and the community in enhanced availability of accountability mechanisms. This decision is not expected to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function of the Board for which the Board received public comment.

    5. .CAT Cross-Ownership Removal Request

      Whereas, in December 2012, the Fundació puntCAT requested the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions reflected on the 23 September 2005 Registry Agreement signed between ICANN and Fundació puntCAT.

      Whereas, the request followed the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs" adopted by the Board on 18 October 2012.

      Whereas, ICANN conducted a competition review in accordance to the Board-approved process and has determined that the request does not raise significant competition issues.

      Whereas, a public comment period took place between 22 December 2012 and 11 February 2013 and only one comment was received, which was in support of Fundació puntCAT's request.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.07), an amendment to remove the cross-ownership restriction in the Fundació puntCAT 23 September 2005 Registry Agreement is approved, and the President and CEO and the General Counsel are authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the amendment.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.07

      Why the Board is addressing the issue?

      The cross-ownership removal for existing registries has been subject to extensive discussions by the board and the community. This is the first time an existing registry has made the request according the Board-approved process adopted 18 October 2012. However, the Board is likely to see additional requests in the further. Under the Board process adopted in October 2012, to lift cross-ownership restrictions existing gTLD registry operators could either request an amendment to their existing Registry Agreement or request transition to the new form of Registry Agreement for new gTLDs. Although Fundació puntCAT requested an amendment to its Registry Agreement, it still will be offered the opportunity to transition to the new form of Registry Agreement for the new gTLDs. Removal of the cross-ownership restrictions for .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG are being considered as part of their overall renewal negotiations. ICANN is also in preliminary discussions with .MOBI and .PRO on removal of the cross-ownership restrictions.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      An amendment to the 23 September 2005 Registry Agreement signed between ICANN and Fundació puntCAT.

      Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

      A public comment period took place between 22 December 2012 and 11 February 2013.

      What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

      Only one comment was received during the public comment period. The comment was in favor of the Fundació puntCAT request.

      What factors did the Board find to be significant?

      ICANN conducted a competition review in accordance to with the Board-approved process for handling requests of removal of cross-ownership restrictions in Registry Agreements. ICANN has determined that the request does not raise significant competition issues.

      Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

      There is no fiscal impact to ICANN.

      Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

      There are no security, stability and resiliency issues identified.

      Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

      This request followed the "Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs" adopted by the Board on 18 October 2012.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received.

    6. Confirm Process Followed Regarding Redelegation of the .GA domain representing Gabon

      Resolved (2013.04.11.08), ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request, and the documentation demonstrates the process was followed and the redelegation is in the interests of the local and global Internet communities.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.08

      As part of the IANA Functions, ICANN receives request to delegate and redelegate country-code top-level domains. ICANN Staff has reviewed and evaluated a redelegation request for this domain and has provided a report to the ICANN Board that proper procedures were followed in that evaluation. The Board's oversight of the process helps ensure ICANN is properly executing its responsibilities relating to the stable and secure operation of critical unique identifier systems on the Internet and pursuant to the IANA Functions Contract.

      Ensuring that the process is followed adds to the accountability of ICANN. This action will have no fiscal impact on ICANN or the community, and will have a positive impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

    7. Change to Public Participation Committee Name

      Whereas, Article XII of the Bylaws provides that the "Board may establish one or more committees of the Board, which shall continue to exist until otherwise determined by the Board".

      Whereas, on 7 November 2008, the Board established a committee named the Public Participation Committee pursuant to its authority under Article XII of the Bylaws.

      Whereas, the Public Participation Committee now desires to change its name to the "Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee," which will be consistent with the new Stakeholder Engagement focus that ICANN has adopted.

      Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has recommended that the Board approve this committee name change.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.09), the Board approves the name change of the Public Participation Committee to the Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.09

      The proposed name change is consistent with the manner in which ICANN is now focusing on Stakeholder Engagement on a global basis.

      This resolution seeks only a name change of the Committee, and not a change in the structure or scope of the Committee. As the Board Governance Committee ("BGC") intends to conduct a full review of the structure and scope of all committees later this year the current resolution seeks only a name change for the PPC.

      Taking this action will positively impact the ICANN community by ensuring that the committee's name adequately reflects the global outreach and engagement with under which ICANN is operating and the committee is overseeing. This resolution will not have any fiscal impact on ICANN or the community. This action will not have any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

    8. SO/AC Fast-Track Budget Request

      Whereas, a working group on budget improvements, which include ICANN staff and Community members identified the need for an earlier decision on the funding of specific requests from the ICANN Community which required funding at the beginning of the fiscal year.

      Whereas, an SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process was developed in response to the working groups suggestion; the process was meant to facilitate the collection, review and submission of budget requests to the Board Finance Committee and the Board for consideration.

      Whereas, timely requests were submitted by the ICANN Community, and were reviewed by a panel of staff members representing the Policy, Stakeholder Engagement and Finance personnel.

      Whereas, the review panel recommended 12 fast track budget requests representing $279,000 requests for approval.

      Whereas the Board Finance Committee met on 5 April 2013, reviewed the process followed and the staff's recommendations, and has recommend that the Board approve the staff's recommendation.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.10), the Board approves the inclusion in ICANN's Fiscal Year 2014 budget an amount for funds relating to 12 requests identified by the Community as part of the SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process.

      Rationale for Resolution 2013.04.11.10

      The SO/AC Additional Budget Requests Fast-Track Process leading to budget approval earlier than usual is a reasonable accommodation for activities that begin near the beginning of FY14. This slight augmentation to ICANN's established budget approval process and timeline helps facilitate the work of the ICANN Community and of the ICANN Staff, and does not create additional expenses. The amount of the committed expenses resulting from this resolution is considered sufficiently small so as not to require resources to be specifically identified and separately approved.

      There is no anticipated impact from this decision on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system as a result of this decision.

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which ICANN received community input.

    9. Thank You Resolutions – Departing Community Members

      Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills that members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process.

      Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees end.

      Whereas, the following member of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is leaving her position when her term ends:

      Marilyn Cade

      Resolved (2013.04.11.11), Marilyn Cade has earned the deep appreciation of the Board for her term of service, and the Board wishes her well in future endeavors.

      Whereas, the following members of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council are leaving their positions when their terms end:

      Fernando Espana, .us
      Paulos Nyirenda, .mw
      Rolando Toledo, .pe

      Resolved (2013.04.11.12), Fernando Espana, Paulos Nyirenda and Rolando Toledo have earned the deep appreciation of the Board for their terms of service, and the Board wishes them well in their future endeavors.

    10. Thank You to Sponsors of ICANN 46 Meeting

      The Board wishes to thank the following sponsors:

      Verisign, Inc., Afilias Limited, .ORG, The Public Interest Registry, HiChina Zchicheng Technology Limited, .PW Registry, Community.Asia, Iron Mountain, Zodiac Holding Limited, Minds + Machines, Neustar Inc., KNET Co., Ltd., Deloitte Bedrijfsrevisoren BV ovve CVBA, JSC Regional Network Information Center (RU-CENTER), UniForum SA T/A ZA Central Registry, CORE Internet Council of Registrars, Symantec, APNIC Pty Ltd, NCC Group, APTLD (Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association), Freedom Registry B.V., Uniregistry Corp., Afnic, ICANN WIKI and our local sponsors CNNIC, CONAC and Internet Society of China.

    11. Thank You to Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of ICANN 46 Meeting

      The Board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, interpreters, technical teams, and the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting. Board would also like to thank the management and staff of the Beijing International Hotel for the wonderful facility to hold this event. Special thanks are given to Li Yun, Senior Sales Manager, Beijing International Hotel and Nick Yang, Manager of Convention Services, Beijing International Hotel.

    12. Thank You to Local Hosts of ICANN 46 Meeting

      Local Hosts of Beijing Meeting. The Board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizer, Mr. Bing SHANG, Minister of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology; Ms. Xia HAN, Director of the Telecommunications Regulation Bureau of MIIT; Mr. Er-Wei SHI, Vice President of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Mr. Tieniu TAN, Vice Secretary General of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Mr. Xiangyang HUANG, Director of CNNIC; Mr. Xiaodong Lee, Chief Executive Officer of CNNIC; Mr. Feng WANG, Vice Minister of State Commission Office for Public Sector Reform; Mr. Ning, FU Chairman of CONAC Board; Mr. Ran ZUO, Vice Chairman of CONAC Board; Mr. Qing SONG, CEO of CONAC; Ms. Qiheng HU, President of Internet Society of China; Mr. Xinmin GAO, Vice President of Internet Society of China; Mr. Wei LU, Secretary General of Internet Society of China.

  2. Main Agenda

    1. IDN Variant TLD Root LGR Procedure and User Experience Study Recommendations

      Whereas, IDNs have been a Board priority for several years to enable Internet users to access domain names in their own language, and the Board recognizes that IDN variants are an important component for some IDN TLD strings;

      Whereas, the Board previously resolved that IDN variant gTLDs and IDN variant ccTLDs will not be delegated until relevant work is completed;

      Whereas, since December 2010 ICANN has been working to find solutions to ensure a secure and stable delegation of IDN variant TLDs, and the IDN Variant TLD Program benefited from significant community participation in developing the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels and the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.13), the Board directs staff to implement the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels [PDF, 772 KB], including updating the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and IDN ccTLD Process to incorporate the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels in the respective evaluation processes.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.14), the Board requests that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs [PDF, 1.38 MB].

      Rationale for Resolutions 2013.04.11.13 – 2013.04.11.14

      Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

      IDN variant TLDs have been a subject of interest for several years to a number of IDN users. The IDN Variant TLD Program has been working with subject matter experts in the community to develop solutions to enable a secure and stable delegation of IDN variant TLDs. The Program has concluded the work on two key components of the solution: the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels and the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs, hereinafter referred to as the Procedure. The Procedure is now ready for consideration for adoption as the mechanism, between other things, to evaluate potential IDN TLD strings and to identify their variants (if any). The recommendations from Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs are now ready to be implemented with any input and guidance that interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees may have.

      What is the proposal being considered?

      The Procedure describes how to populate and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels, which is expected to become a key component in processing IDN TLD applications. The Procedure requires participation from the relevant communities as a central component. The Procedure includes safeguards to ensure maximum community participation of a given linguistic community and avoid dominance of a single interested party, and requires technical experts involvement to ensure technical and linguistic accuracy on the contents of the Rules. The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs includes a series of recommendations to enable a good user experience with IDN variant TLDs.

      What Stakeholders or others were consulted?

      The development of the Procedure and the Report included full participation of several members from the community. Both documents also went through two public comment processes and a number of public presentations where feedback was gathered.

      What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

      There were concerns raised about the idea that variants in general are inappropriate in the root zone, though, allowing that some specific case might be acceptable. There were also concerns about conflict resolution and governance of the Procedure. However, by having a requirement of consensus within and between panels the conflict resolution issue would seem to be mitigated. In regard to the governance of the Procedure, it is foreseen that having the integration panel under contract with ICANN will allow removing a panelist that could be behaving in a non-constructive manner.

      Concerns were also raised that the issues raised in the Report may frighten readers away from supporting variants and the Report does not highlight the risks (problems and security issues) if variants are not supported or activated. However, in order to ensure a secure, stable and acceptable experience, these issues need to be called out for the respective parties to work on. The need for variants is well articulated by the individual issues reports, so that issue outside the scope of the current study.

      What significant materials did Board review?

      A Board paper and Reference Materials detailing the proposal, the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels, and the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs.

      What factors the Board found to be significant?

      The Board found that the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels will improve the current process to evaluate IDN strings by using a pre-approved, deterministic process to define which code points are allowed in the root. The Board also found significant that the rules are a key component to consistently identify the variants of applied-for IDN strings. The Procedure has the participation of the relevant communities as a core feature. In addition, the Recommendations aim to enable a good user experience in regards to IDN variant TLDs.

      Are there Positive or Negative Community Impacts?

      Adopting the Procedure and consequently the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels will benefit future TLD applicants by enabling future applicants to check whether the string they are intending to apply for is allowed. The Rules will also allow the deterministic identification of IDN variants for the applied-for strings. Implementing the Recommendations will enable a good user experience with IDN variant TLDs.

      Are there fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN (Strategic Plan, Operating Plan, Budget); the community; and/or the public?

      No fiscal impacts/ramifications on ICANN are foreseen by adopting this resolution.

      Are there any Security, Stability or Resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

      The adoption of the Rules and the implementation of the Recommendations is expected to have a positive impact on the Security of the DNS by having a technically sound process with multiple checkpoints, including public review, of the code points and their variants (if any) that will be allowed in the root zone and the deployment of measures avoid user confusion regarding IDN variant TLDs.

      Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

      This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.

    2. PIA-CC Application to Form New Constituency

      Whereas, the ICANN Board wants to encourage participation by a broad spectrum of existing and potential community groupings in ICANN processes and activities.

      Whereas, the ICANN Board has established a Process for the Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies that includes objective eligibility criteria, encourages collaboration and puts the decisions regarding applications, in the first instance, in the hands of the communities to be directly impacted by the potential new Constituency.

      Whereas, the Cybercafé Association of India (CCAOI), submitted an application for formal recognition of a new GNSO Constituency called the "Public Internet Access/Cybercafé Ecosystem (PIA/CC)" within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).

      Whereas, ICANN staff managed a 68-day Public Comment Forum for community review and reaction to the PIA/CC proposal.

      Whereas, the NCSG Leadership and ICANN staff engaged in collaborative consultation and dialogue with the PIA/CC proponents.

      Whereas the NCSG Leadership and ICANN staff have followed the process and the NCSG has advised the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board of its determination to deny the application because the application does not meet the criteria established by the Board.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.15) the decision of the NCSG to deny the PIA/CC application is ratified with the understanding that the decision is without prejudice and the Constituency proponents have the right to re-submit a new application.

      Resolved (2013.04.11.16) the President and CEO is directed to continue collaborative discussions with the PIA/CC proponents to further investigate and consider other options for community engagement within the ICANN community and its processes.

      Rationale for Resolutions 2013.04.11.15 – 2013.04.11.16

      The process for the recognition of new GNSO Constituencies was designed to provide specific and objective application criteria and to place decisions on the recognition of new GNSO Constituencies, in the first instance, in the hands of the community groups in the best position to evaluate those applications. In the present case, the process was followed and the NCSG has made its determination.

      It is important to note that Board ratification of the NCSG decision to reject the PIA/CC application is without prejudice to the right of the proponents to resubmit a new application. The Board hopes that further discussions with the PIA/CC proponents can result in a course of action that will allow PIA/CC interests to be effectively incorporated into ICANN's activities and processes.

      This action will have no immediate or substantial impact on ICANN's resources. This action is not expected to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS.

      This action is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received.

    3. Any Other Business

      No resolutions taken.

Published on 11 April 2013

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."