You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

  • Category: (replace this text with one of the following categories: Administration/Budget, Board, ccTLD, gTLD, IP, ICANN Structure, International Agreement, Root Zone)
  • Topic: (replace this text with a keywords from title)
  • Board meeting date: 16 January 2007
  • Resolution number: 07.03
  • URL for Board minutes/resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-17jan07.htm
  • Status: (replace this text with: Completed, Ongoing, Suspended)

Summary
(replace this text with the a one-sentence summary of the resolution)

Text

The Chairman referred to the comprehensive work done by staff on this issue and that full information had been provided to the Board by ICANN staff. The Chair asked Kurt Pritz to provide background and summary information to this item.

Kurt advised that GNR is the sponsor of the .NAME registry and that they have been examining ways to make this registry more vibrant and so they have submitted a proposal to ICANN for the limited release of two character names. Two character names on the second level would be shared just like other common surnames are currently shared on the second level in .name. The proposal would release two character names for third level registrations and email only (so for example joe@li.name ) meaning that the actual second level two character names cannot be registered.

ICANN staff performed an initial technical evaluation, and referred the matter to the RSTEP process. The RSTEP panel considered the security and stability impacts of the proposal, which focused on unexpected responses being received from the DNS for both existing and non-existing domains, as well as simply user confusion where the idea of two letter second-level domains is unfamiliar.

Kurt advised that the RSTEP report found that the proposal "does not create a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability." Its study included analysis of name server data to determine if an abnormal number of queries for TLDs within TLDs were received by top-level domain operators, as well as registering experimental domains that would be susceptible to technical problems. Research of UDRP cases had found no evidence of user confusion from earlier registrations of two letter domain names. Public comments were evaluated and taken into consideration by the Board and there was specific discussion of the negative comments made by .DE, .CN and .UK during the process.

The Chairman opened discussion on this item.

Sharil Tarmizi asked whether GNR Registry had received feed back from the GAC on this proposal. Both Kurt Pritz and Paul Twomey confirmed that the matter was raised informally by the GAC at ICANN's Melbourne meeting in March 2001 but that the only comment made formally was at ICANN's Montevideo meeting in September 2001 and that was specific to .AERO and two letter names. The contract with .AERO has been changed since. Sharil also asked that when reviewing TLD's, staff should note the GAC ccTLD principles that were approved by the GAC in Capetown, South Africa at the ICANN Meeting in 2005.

Susan Crawford noted that the RSTEP process seems to be working well and security and stability issues are being well explored.

Following this discussion, Susan Crawford moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded a request for a vote on the following resolution:Whereas, Global Name Registry submitted a request <http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/GNR_Proposal.pdf> for the limited release of two-character names under Appendix K of the .NAME Registry Agreement and under the Registry Services Evaluation Policy <http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html>.

Whereas, ICANN conducted its review of the request and determined that although there were no significant competition issues, ICANN did not have sufficient information to conclude there are no significant security and stability issues and referred the proposal to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel for further evaluation.

Whereas, on 4 December 2006, the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel review team completed its report on the proposal <http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/RSTEP-GNR-proposal-review-team-report.pdf>. The review team determined that the proposal does not create a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability. The report was posted for public comment during the ICANN Annual Meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Whereas, based on the report of the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel, internal experts and other public comments, ICANN has concluded that there are no significant security and stability issues related to introduction of the proposal.

Resolved (07.03), the President and General Counsel are authorized to enter into an amendment of the .NAME Registry Agreement to implement the proposed registry service.
The Board approved the resolution by a unanimous voice vote of all Board Members attending the Meeting (13 Board Members. Demi Getschko had joined the call prior to this vote.

Implementation Actions

  • (replace this text with specific Action Item)
    • Responsible entity: (replace this text with the responsible entity: ICANN department, ICANN Community Structure, Board, U.S. Department of Commerce)
    • Due date: (replace this text with Due Date)
    • Completion date: (replace this text with Date action was implemented)
  • (replace this text with specific Action Item)
    • Responsible entity: (replace this text with the responsible entity: ICANN department, ICANN Community Structure, Board, U.S. Department of Commerce)
    • Due date: (replace this text with Due Date)
    • Completion date: (replace this text with Date action was implemented)

Other Related Resolutions

  • (replace this text with links to related resolutions)

Additional Information

  • (replace this text with any additional notes related to this resolution, i.e. funding considerations)

Note: The "Add Comment" box below is for sharing information about implementation of this resolution. Off-topic comments will be removed.

  • No labels