Re: [council] Preliminary Report on 25 September ICANN Board Meeting

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Thanks, Andrew.

We definitely needed this kind of mutual communications between Board
and Names Council and at this moment ICANN staff can do it since you
are involved with both teleconferences.:-)

Hope we can find the right direction to do it such as having a liaison nc
during the Board teleconference or vice versa.

After reading the Board's actions, I realised the Board is more proactive
than Names Council and that's why we really have to think of what NC
can do in the dnso structure.

If we cannot define NC properly or function properly as defined,
it will be hard to ask constituency as well as dnso in general to support
NC.

YJ

> To the Names Council:
>
> I thought it might be useful to send you a quick summary of the actions
> taken by the ICANN Board at its teleconference on Monday, 25 September.
> The preliminary report is posted at
> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep00.htm>.  The Board
> acted on these matters:
>
>    o ccTLD Delegations
>
> As you may know, ICANN recently received a query from the European
> Commission regarding the delegation of the "eu" alpha-2 code as a
> ccTLD.
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/liikanen-letter-06jul00.htm>  Under
> existing ICANN/IANA policy <http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm>, ccTLD
> assignments are made on the basis of codes on the ISO 3166-1 list.
> While the "eu" code does not appear on that list, the ISO 3166
> Maintenance Agency has designated the "eu" code as approved for "all
> uses."  Confronted with this situation, the IANA staff asked the Board
> for guidance.  The Board's answer was that the code should be regarded
> as available for delegation under existing policy, and furthermore that
> no new TLDs should be established without a completed registry agreement
> between ICANN and the registry operator.  See
> <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep00.htm#00.74> for the
> detailed resolutions.
>
>    o Amendment to ASO MoU
>
> The Board authorized amendment of the ASO MoU to align the terms of
> Address Council members so that new members from the three RIR regions
> join simultaneously on January 1.  The amendment appears at
> <http://www.icann.org/aso/aso-mou-amend1-25sep00.htm>.
>
>    o Multilingual Domain Names - Verisign Registry Testbed
>
> In response to Verisign Global Registry's recent announcement about its
> multilingual domain name testbed, the Board called on Verisign 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."  The Board
> also:  called on Verisign to provide equivalent testbed access to all
> accredited registrars; called on the participating registrars to protect
> the interests and expectations of domain-name holders and affected third
> parties; and asked the ICANN staff to consider what measures might be
> needed "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."
>
>    o March 2001 Meetings - Melbourne
>
> Finally, the Board agreed with the staff's decision to accept a
> well-supported proposal from local hosts to hold the Spring 2001 ICANN
> Board meetings in Melbourne, Australia, from 10-13 March.  As always,
> the SOs are invited to hold a meeting (if you wish) in conjunction with
> the ICANN Board meetings.
>
> --Andrew
>