Skip to main content
Resources

Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee (PSEC) Meeting Minutes

PSEC Attendees: Sébastien Bachollet – Chair, Chris Disspain, Thomas Narten, and Kuo-Wei Wu

Other Board Attendees: Cherine Chalaby and George Sadowsky

Staff Attendees: David Olive – Vice President, Policy Development Support; Megan Bishop, Michelle Bright, Sally Costerton, Renate De Wulf, Samantha Eisner, Janice Douma Lange, Chris Gift, Larisa Gurnick, Alice Jansen and Nick Tomasso

Invited Attendee: Jonne Soininen


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

  1. Approval of Minutes: The PSEC approved the minutes of its prior meeting in April 2013.
  2. Review of Action Items: The PSEC reviewed the items that remain outstanding and are not expected for discussion at this meeting. The PSEC also discussed the development of the Action Item list and the need to clear closed items, but also maintain record of all identified action items.
  3. Public Participation Review Items: The PSEC received an update from staff regarding the public comment forum, including a report recently provided to the ATRT2. Staff noted that a study was undertaken on the comment forum process. There have been approximately six comment periods per month, with the average comment period now lasting over 50 days, including the reply cycle. The data regarding the reply cycle does not yet demonstrate the effectiveness of replies, as many of the items in reply are initial comments. This is an issue of behavioral change, and staff is looking into ways to better facilitate participation, including the incorporation of public comment streams into MyICANN.org. The PSEC also began discussing when the appropriate time is to try to change the public comment system, and whether there is a need to wait for recommendations from ATRT2 prior to undertaking any changes.

    Staff reported that there is already work ongoing regarding new tools to enhance the comment process, and further information will come to the PSEC when ready.

    • Action:
      • Staff to provide update at the next PSEC meeting on the ongoing work, including identification of objectives and proposed action plan and timeline for this work.
  4. ICANN Meeting Locations: Staff provided the PSEC with an overview of a recommendation for the October 2014 North American meeting location.
  5. Meeting Strategy Working Group: The Chair provided an update to the PSEC on the work of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG), and the division of work among the subgroups of the MSWG.
  6. Review of ICANN46 Meeting in Beijing: Staff provided an update on public participation within the Beijing meeting, including the public forum, where the modifications to the format seem to have been well accepted. A survey is underway that will provide some more detailed data on this issue. There are criticisms that the Board did not answer questions during the forum, and this issue has to be addressed before the public forum in Durban. The PSEC needs an issue paper on what the purpose is for the public forum, to allow for further consideration of how to address these concerns. On remote participation, staff noted that there is increased demand for user friendly and reliable tools. All of ICANN's remote participation tools were used at the Beijing meeting, including remote scribe support, translation, Adobe Connect, and others. There is work that still needs to be done to assure that presentations are always made available online prior to the start of sessions.
    • Action:
      • Staff to prepare a paper on the purpose of the public forum, to facilitate community conversation on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Durban.
  7. Global Stakeholder Engagement Beijing Interactive Session: Staff provided a report on the joint session of the GSE team and the PSEC held in Beijing, noting that a second session is likely to be held at the Durban meeting.
  8. Any Other Business: A PSEC member raised the question of getting accurate meeting attendee counts for the Beijing meeting and the various sessions, to understand the need for scaling our meetings and processes.
    • Action:
      • Staff to provide the PSEC with counts from the meeting sessions in Beijing.
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."