Special Meeting of
the Board Minutes
25 September 2000
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
multilingual domain names
25 September 2000
A meeting of the Board of Directors of
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN")
was held by teleconference on 25 September 2000. The following
Directors of the Corporation were present by telephone: Esther
Dyson, Chairman, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Robert Blokzijl, Vint
Cerf, Greg Crew, Phil Davidson, Frank Fitzsimmons, Ken Fockler,
Hans Kraaijenbrink, Jun Murai, Michael Roberts, Eugenio Triana,
and Pindar Wong. Directors Geraldine Capdeboscq, Jonathan Cohen,
Alejandro Pisanty, and Linda S. Wilson joined the call while
it was in progress. Also present on the teleconference were Louis
Touton, Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel of the
Corporation; Andrew McLaughlin, Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation; and Joe Sims of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
The meeting was called to order by Esther Dyson at 5:05 am U.S.
Pacific Daylight Time.
DELEGATION
OF ccTLDs
Mr. Roberts raised the need for interpretation
of existing policies regarding the delegation of "country
code" top-level domains (ccTLDs). There are two areas in
which the Board should consider clarifying the manner in which
ccTLD policies are to be implemented:
1. ICP-1,
which summarizes the current ccTLD policies, states that new
ccTLD "codes are assigned from a table known as ISO-3166-1."
On 6 July 2000, Erkki Liikanen, the European Commissioner for
Enterprise & Information Society, wrote
to Mr. Roberts regarding the possible establishment of an .eu
TLD. Although the alpha-2 code "eu" is not directly
included on the ISO
3166-1 list, the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, as pointed
out in Mr. Liikanan's letter, "has decided to extend the
scope of the reservation of the code element EU to cover any
application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation of
the name European Union, including its being used as an Internet
Top Level Domain." This gives it a status that seems practically
equivalent to direct listing. The IANA staff seeks the Board's
guidance as to whether codes not directly listed but having been
granted an "any application" reservation on the ISO
3166 Maintenance Agency's exceptional reservation list should
be treated as subject to delegation under ICP-1.
2. For several months, discussions have
been ongoing in the Internet community regarding the legal and
other relationships between ICANN and ccTLD managers. Mr. Roberts
stated that, although there continues to be disagreement about
terms, there appears to be a clear consensus that ICANN's relationships
with ccTLD managers should be set forth in contract. (In the
past, there have been no contracts.) Indeed, ICANN's Memorandum
of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce states
that one task
remaining to be completed in the transition is for ICANN
to "achieve stable agreements" with ccTLD organizations.
Mr. Roberts presented the following resolutions
for discussion (the numbers in brackets are added for convenience
of reference in the discussion below):
[1] Whereas, the participants in the ICANN
process have for many months been engaged in discussions regarding
the appropriate relationships among organizations operating ccTLDs,
the relevant governments or public authorities, and ICANN, this
topic having been discussed in detail in connection with the
ICANN meetings in March 2000 in Cairo and in July 2000 in Yokohama;
[2] Whereas, at the Cairo meeting the Board
authorized (in Resolution
00.13) the President and staff to work with the ccTLD organizations,
Governmental Advisory Committee, and other interested parties
to prepare draft language for contracts, policy statements, and/or
communications embodying these relationships;
[3] Whereas, although the exact terms of
the relationships are still under discussion, some progress has
been made, and it is clear that ICANN and the ccTLD organizations
should enter into agreements with each other describing their
roles and responsibilities;
[4] Whereas, ICANN has committed in its
>second status report
under its Memorandum of Understanding with the United States
Government and in Amendment
2 to that Memorandum of Understanding to continue its efforts
to achieve stable agreements with the ccTLD organizations;
[5] Whereas, the United States Government
has indicated that completion of the transition of responsibilities
for technical coordination of certain Internet functions from
the United States to the private sector requires achievement
of stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD
organizations;
[6] Whereas, completion of the transition
is a high priority and all reasonable efforts should therefore
be devoted toward finalizing and entering appropriate and stable
agreements with organizations operating ccTLDs;
[7] Whereas, the IANA has received various
applications for establishment of ccTLDs involving alpha-2 codes
not on the ISO
3166-1 list but on the reserved list published by the ISO
3166 Maintenance Agency;
[8] Whereas, the IANA's practice on the
delegability of such codes has varied from time to time in the
past;
[9] Whereas, the IANA staff has requested
guidance as to the appropriate practice to follow regarding such
codes;
[10] It is therefore RESOLVED that the
IANA staff is advised that alpha-2 codes not on the ISO 3166-1
list are delegable as ccTLDs only in cases where the ISO 3166
Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation list, has
issued a reservation of the code that covers any application
of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of
the country or territory involved;
[11] It is further RESOLVED that in view
of the state of ongoing discussions directed toward reaching
stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD
organizations, delegation of additional ccTLDs should be finalized
only upon achievement of stable and appropriate agreements between
ICANN and the ccTLD organization, in a form approved by the Board.
In discussion of this issue, Ms. Dyson,
Mr. Fockler, and Mr. Abril i Abril expressed the view that providing
a response to the IANA staff regarding how to treat "any
application" reservations (see [10] above) raised a policy
matter, which should be referred to the DNSO. Other Board members
stated that it was important for the IANA to be able to deal
with particular applications in a timely manner, that the question
posed involves only a minor interpretational matter rather than
the type of significant policy matter for which the DNSO is designed
to provide recommendations, and that in these circumstances it
is appropriate for the Board to act.
During the above discussion, Ms. Wilson,
Mr. Cohen, and Ms. Capdeboscq joined the call. In the early part
of the following discussion, Mr. Pisanty joined.
In continuing discussion, Mr. Triana stated
his view that the guidance sought by the IANA staff does not
involve any new policy. Various directors discussed the proper
procedure for formulating the guidance requested by the IANA
staff, with the discussion emphasizing the importance of balancing
the urgency of action with the degree of policy content involved.
Mr. Fockler moved to revise clause [10]
above and to add a clause [10.5] to read as follows:
[10] It is therefore RESOLVED that the
ICANN Board intends to advise the IANA staff after decision at
the November 2000 Board meeting that alpha-2 codes not on the
ISO 3166-1 list are delegable as ccTLDs only in cases where the
ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation list,
has issued a reservation of the code that covers any application
of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of
the country or territory involved;
[10.5] It is further RESOLVED, that the
ICANN Board will seek the opinion of the DNSO prior to the November
2000 board meeting on this use of alpha-2 codes not on the ISO
3166-1 list;
The motion was seconded and discussed.
In the discussion, several Board members expressed the view that
the Board should take care not to intrude on the primary responsibility
of the DNSO to make recommendations on policy. Board members
also commented, on the other hand, that the DNSO process would
take too long in view of the need to respond to a pending request
and that the matter at hand does not involve a change in policy,
but rather only an interpretation of existing policy. The question
of whether to adopt the amendment was called, and the motion
to amend was defeated, with three directors voting in favor (Ms.
Dyson, Mr. Abril i Abril, and Mr. Fockler) and fourteen voting
against. (Mr. Abramatic and Mr. Conrades were not in attendance.)
Mr. Wong proposed amending clause [10]
by replacing "country or territory" with "country,
territory, or area". By consensus, this amendment was adopted.
In the discussion, it was noted that the
provision in clause [11] for entry of stable and appropriate
agreements between ICANN and ccTLD organizations prior to actual
delegation is necessary and appropriate to further ICANN's purposes
because it involves the initial establishment of ICANN's initial
set of relationships and essential to fulfillment of the mission
envisioned for ICANN in the White Paper.
The following resolutions were then read
and adopted, with 16 directors (Ms. Dyson, Mr. Abril i Abril,
Mr. Robert Blokzijl, Ms. Capdeboscq, Mr. Cerf, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Crew, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Kraaijenbrink, Mr. Murai,
Mr. Pisanty, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Triana, Ms. Wilson, and Mr. Wong)
voting in favor and one director (Mr. Fockler) voting against:
Whereas, the participants in the ICANN
process have for many months been engaged in discussions regarding
the appropriate relationships among organizations operating ccTLDs,
the relevant governments or public authorities, and ICANN, this
topic having been discussed in detail in connection with the
ICANN meetings in March 2000 in Cairo and in July 2000 in Yokohama;
Whereas, at the Cairo meeting the Board
authorized (in Resolution
00.13) the President and staff to work with the ccTLD organizations,
Governmental Advisory Committee, and other interested parties
to prepare draft language for contracts, policy statements, and/or
communications embodying these relationships;
Whereas, although the exact terms of the
relationships are still under discussion, some progress has been
made, and it is clear that ICANN and the ccTLD organizations
should enter into agreements with each other describing their
roles and responsibilities;
Whereas, ICANN has committed in its second status report
under its Memorandum of Understanding with the United States
Government and in Amendment
2 to that Memorandum of Understanding to continue its efforts
to achieve stable agreements with the ccTLD organizations;
Whereas, the United States Government has
indicated that completion of the transition of responsibilities
for technical coordination of certain Internet functions from
the United States to the private sector requires achievement
of stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD
organizations;
Whereas, completion of the transition is
a high priority and all reasonable efforts should therefore be
devoted toward finalizing and entering appropriate and stable
agreements with organizations operating ccTLDs;
Whereas, the IANA has received various
applications for establishment of ccTLDs involving alpha-2 codes
not on the ISO
3166-1 list but on the reserved list published by the ISO
3166 Maintenance Agency;
Whereas, the IANA's practice on the delegability
of such codes has varied from time to time in the past;
Whereas, the IANA staff has requested guidance
as to the appropriate practice to follow regarding such codes;
It is therefore RESOLVED
[00.74] that the IANA staff is advised that alpha-2 codes not
on the ISO 3166-1 list are delegable as ccTLDs only in cases
where the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation
list, has issued a reservation of the code that covers any application
of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of
the country, territory, or area involved;
It is further RESOLVED
[00.75] that in view of the state of ongoing discussions directed
toward reaching stable and appropriate agreements between ICANN
and the ccTLD organizations, delegation of additional ccTLDs
should be finalized only upon achievement of stable and appropriate
agreements between ICANN and the ccTLD organization, in a form
approved by the Board.
Mr. Cerf left the call after stating his
vote on the above resolutions.
AMENDMENT
TO ASO MOU
Mr. Touton presented resolution language
to authorize entry of an amendment to the ASO Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the terms of Address Council members. The amendment
language had been circulated to the Board members and posted
on the ICANN web site prior to the meeting. Mr. Touton noted
that the amendment had been agreed by the RIR and ICANN staffs,
and had received uniformly favorable informal input from members
of the Address Council and the RIR boards.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board unanimously adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, ICANN and the three current Regional
Internet Registries (RIRs) entered a Memorandum of Understanding
(ASO MOU) for formation of ICANN's Address Supporting Organization
on 18 October 1999;
Whereas, questions have arisen under the
ASO MOU about the exact terms of office of Address Council members;
Whereas, the members of the Address Council,
along with the staffs of the RIRs and ICANN, have suggested that
the ASO MOU be amended to align the terms so that the terms of
new members of the Address Council all begin on 1 January and
so that outgoing members can continue in office for up to six
months after their terms in the event their successors have not
yet been chosen;
Whereas, the Board has been presented with
a proposed amendment
to the ASO MOU that accomplishes these purposes;
Whereas, the proposed amendment has been
discussed favorably by the members of the Address Council and
the RIR staffs and is being presented to the RIR boards for their
formal approval;
RESOLVED [00.76] that
the President is authorized to enter an amendment to the ASO
MOU on substantially the terms
presented.
MARCH
2001 MEETING LOCATION
Mr. McLaughlin informed the Board that
the only formal proposal for hosting the March 2001 ICANN meeting
that was received called for holding it in Melbourne, Australia,
from 10-13 March 2001. This spans the period of Saturday-Tuesday.
The usual four-day format would be used, with the public forum
on Monday and the Board meeting on Tuesday. By consensus, the
Board gave approval to those plans.
MULTILINGUAL
DOMAIN NAMES
Mr. Touton raised the topic of the multilingual
testbed for the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains recently
announced by Verisign Global Registry Services (formerly NSI
Registry). Mr. Wong immediately recused himself from the discussion
of this topic.
Mr. Touton noted that on 22 August Verisign
Global Registry Services announced its introduction of the multilingual
testbed, under which users can register domain names in alternative
character sets under the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains.
Under the program, users can register second-level domain names
(the "example" in "example.com") in various
non-ASCII character sets (traditional and simplified Chinese,
Japanese, and Korean initially; Arabic, Portuguese, and Spanish
later). The top-level domain names themselves (".com,"
".net," and ".org") will not be affected.
(I.e. only the second-level name can be multilingual under this
testbed.)
Multilingual names do not meet the technical
format currently required for domain names stored in the DNS.
This so-called "host name" format requires that a domain
name label consist entirely of ASCII letters and numbers. (Internal
hyphens may also be used.) To meet this format requirement the
Verisign testbed system takes the multilingual name and converts
it to a valid host name using a coding scheme called "RACE."
Thus, the Chinese characters for "example" would converted
to "3bhyww2q". This string is then appended to a four-character
string (in the initial proposal "ra--") so that a valid
host name is generated that is not likely to be of interest for
ordinary uses (in this example "ra--3bhyww2q.com").
For its testbed, Verisign Registry is planning to deploy special
resolvers throughout the Internet that would receive multilingual
queries for domain name resolution, convert the strings to the
ASCII equivalents, and look up those equivalents in the ordinary
DNS zone file. The proper IP address will then be returned to
the requesting party.
Under the Verisign testbed, multilingual
names can be registered with any accredited registrar that enhances
its systems to handle the multilingual names and passes technical
certification of this capability. As required by the Registry
Agreement, multilingual names will be registered on the same
economic terms ($6 per year) as any
other domain name. In other words, the ASCII-equivalent domain
name is handled contractually just like any other name and Verisign
Registry is planning to deploy the conversion resolvers at no
additional charge.
The IDN Working Group of the IETF has been
engaged for some time in developing standards for internationalizing
the DNS to permit use of multilingual domain names. The technical
challenges in devising a suitable standard in this area are substantial.
All of the approaches deployed so far (including Verisign's)
involve some risk of incompatibility, although Verisign's technical
approach appears to present fewer compatiblity issues than some
other approaches.
In announcing its multilingual testbed,
Verisign stated its commitment to implement the testbed consistent
with the IAB's comments onInternationalized Domain Names and
the Unique DNS Root. However, Verisign Registry noted that it
"intends to develop and deploy multilingual domain name
technology in the testbed prior to formal approval of multilingual
domain name standards by the IETF."
In the ensuing discussion, Board members
thought it appropriate for ICANN to promote an environment that
supports development of open, non-proprietary standards for extension
of the DNS to non-ASCII character sets without undue delay, while
minimizing interoperability problems. They also stressed that
the Verisign testbed was only one of several experiments going
on, that fair treatment of domain-name holders and registrars
is important, that experiments should not significantly risk
the smooth operation of the Internet, and that the experimental
character of the testbed should be understood by all.
During the above discussion, Ms. Capdeboscq,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Triana, and Ms. Wilson left the call.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, Verisign
Global Registry Services has announced a multilingual
testbed under the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains
to be available for all accredited registrars passing technical
certification;
Whereas, ICANN recognizes that it is important
that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do
not use the ASCII character set;
Whereas, the internationalization of the
Internet's domain name system must be accomplished through standards
that are open, non-proprietary, and fully compatible with the
Internet's existing end-to-end model and that preserve globally
unique naming in a universally resolvable public name space;
Whereas, constructive experimentation with
extensions to the domain name system to support multilingual
names should be encouraged, provided it is done in a manner consistent
with promoting responsible standardization, it avoids disrupting
the stability of the Internet or the interoperability of Internet
services, and its experimental character is clearly understood
by all affected;
RESOLVED [00.77] that
the ICANN Board calls on Verisign Global Registry Services to
consult closely with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
and the Internet Architecture Board concerning the design and
implementation of the testbed, with the goal that the testbed
should promote, rather than complicate, technical standardization
efforts in this area;
RESOLVED [00.78] that
the ICANN Board calls on Verisign Global Registry Services to
conduct the testbed in full compliance with its agreements with
ICANN, including by providing equivalent access within the testbed
to all ICANN-accredited registrars that meet reasonable technical-qualification
requirements;
RESOLVED [00.79] that
the ICANN Board urges participating registrars to handle registrations
within the testbed in a manner that protects the interests and
expectations of both domain-name holders and affected third parties;
RESOLVED [00.80] that
the President and staff are directed to investigate and report
to the Board whether any addenda to the agreements with Verisign
Global Registry Services are appropriate to facilitate the operation
of the testbed in a manner that protects those interests and
expectations, including provisions that facilitate evolution
of the testbed to match evolving standardization efforts within
the IETF.
Eleven directors (Ms. Dyson, Mr. Abril
i Abril, Mr. Robert Blokzijl, Mr. Crew, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Fitzsimmons,
Mr. Fockler, Mr. Kraaijenbrink, Mr. Murai, Mr. Pisanty, and Mr.
Roberts) voted in favor and Mr. Wong abstained.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS
The Board members briefly discussed the
status of the CEO search and arrangements for the upcoming selection
of five At-Large directors.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 am U.S.
Pacific Daylight Time.
_______________________
Louis Touton
Secretary
Link to this article
- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING - 25 September 2000
- IDN домены - интернационализация доменных имен
- History of Internationalised Domain Names
- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - MULTILINGUAL DOMAIN NAMES
Регистрация домена ua
|
E-mail
|
© Агентство DomainNAME, 2001-2024
|
