Skip to main content

Minutes - Public Participation Committee (PPC)

PPC members present: Dennis Jennings, Thomas Narten, Thomas Roessler, Mike Silber, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat – chair

PPC member absent and sending apologies: Katim Touray

Staff Members Present: Samantha Eisner, Kieren McCarthy, Diane Schroeder, Amy Stathos and Nick Tomasso

The following is a summary of discussions, actions taken and actions identified:

  1. Reviewed the experiences at the Sydney meeting relating to public participation in order to move forward with recommendations for changes and improvements in advance of the Seoul meeting. Discussed the public session with the PPC in Sydney and advised staff to locate a time-slot during future international public meetings with fewer time conflicts with other sessions. Proposed scheduling an inter-sessional meeting (in between the international public meetings) with the community regarding public participation issues to discuss proposals for public participation-related issues in preparation for the Seoul meeting and to test out remote participation capabilities. Discussed the public forum layout, the introduction of the dual microphone system and time clock, and potential modifications for better use in Seoul, including the institution of the time clock at the start, and modifications to the method for inclusion of questions from remote participants. Discussed need to create mechanism for the appropriate recognition of prepared statements from community members while maximizing the time for addressing actual questions for the Board. Discussed the overall meeting experience and the introduction of remote participation tool into portions of the meeting, and discussed general ideas for integrating new participants into the meetings. Discussed need for ease of identifying documents produced for meetings, including executive summaries, unified document naming scheme and single point of access for international public meeting-related documents for ease of reference .
    • Actions:
      • Staff to identify times on international public meeting schedule for placement of public session with the PPC so as to minimize conflict;
      • Staff to submit proposals for scheduling, agenda topics, and potential participants for an inter-sessional community conference call with the PPC.
      • Staff to identify ways to introduce reminders of the purpose of the dual microphone system and time clock throughout the public forum to educate persons arriving in the middle of the session.
      • Staff to identify potential solutions to improve remote participation in the public forum.
      • Staff to provide statistics to PPC regarding first time attendees from region where meeting is held.
      • Staff to work to identify opportunities for educational sessions at the meetings for persons newer to the community, and how to provide clear summaries to all participants of the issues for discussion at the meetings.
      • PPC members to identify minimum requirements for coordinated document naming conventions for documents provided for public meetings.
  2. Discussed the implementation of document deadlines for all international meetings, and the experiences with the trial deadlines implemented for the Sydney meeting. The PPC agreed that a single, 15 working-day deadline was optimal, and all papers should include an executive summary. The PPC also agreed that meeting agendas should be included in the deadline. Further the PPC agreed that translations should not yet be part of the deadline, but staff and the community should take into consideration the need to build in time for translation of documents.
    • Action:
      • Staff to provide a summary of the PPC’s recommendations for PPC review and presentation to the Board in advance of the 30 July 2009 Board Meeting.
  3. Discussed updates on trials of remote participation, including the use of remote participation tools in Sydney and at the recent Implementation Recommendation Team sessions in New York City and London, and lessons learned regarding technical requirements. Discussed the need for the creation of a “Best Practices” document to discuss expected standards of behavior for remote participants.
    • Action:
      • Staff to draft proposal for a “Best Practices” document for committee review by mid-to-late August.
      • Staff to continue to draft paper for committee on next steps for remote participation, including a review of tools under consideration, and to include considerations of resources available to remote participants, for presentation to PPC by mid-to-late August.
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"""" is not an IDN."