Skip to main content
Resources

Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee (PSEC) Meeting Minutes

PSEC Members: Sébastien Bachollet – Chair, Chris Disspain, Thomas Narten (Non-Voting Liaison), and Kuo-Wei Wu

Other Board Member Attendees: Cherine Chalaby, Fadi Chehadé (President and CEO, ICANN), and George Sadowsky

Other Invited Attendees: Jonne Soininen

Staff Attendees: Megan Bishop, Duncan Burns, Sally Costerton, Chris Gift, Lynn Lipinski, David Olive, Erika Randall, Christina Rodriguez, Nick Tomasso, and Brad White


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

  1. Minutes: The PSEC approved the minutes from its 16 May 2013 meeting.

  2. Public Participation Review Options: Staff provided an update on implementation of recommendations from the ATRT1, including improved online tools and platforms that encourage more public participation as well as more inputs into the public comment process. The PSEC engaged in a discussion of the deployment of ICANNLabs, and staff noted one of the first tools that will be prototyped is a new public comment tool. The PSEC made suggestions on improvements for online public comment tools, including ensuring that the tool has a way to have conversations within the comment period.

    • Action:

      • Staff to prepare a progress report on this topic, to be presented to the PSEC 10 days prior to the next PSEC meeting.

  3. ICANN 46 Beijing:

    3.1. Meeting Counts: Staff presented the PSEC with a report of the number of attendees for each session at the Beijing meeting, noting that an excess of 2,500 people registered, and the largest session had approximately 1,300 participants. The PSEC discussed additional data points that would be helpful to analyze, including planned attendance for each session versus actual attendance, and attendance trends by days of the week, as well as identification of closed and open sessions. The PSEC also discussed the need to see the meeting data from the Durban meeting before making any conclusions about planning for future meetings.

    • Action:

      • Staff to prepare additional data points and analysis of meeting attendance for discussion at next PSEC meeting.

    3.2. Participant Survey: Staff presented the survey results of meeting attendees at the Beijing meeting, noting that the survey was sent to approximately 2,100 participants and the vast majority of survey respondents expressed overall satisfaction with the Beijing meeting. The PSEC discussed the provision of additional details on the breakdown of attendees from Asia to note the attendees from China and the remainder of Asia.

  4. Public Forum: Staff provided an update on the planned format for the public forum session at the Durban meeting, and noted comments from the community about what worked from the format used during the Beijing meeting. Staff noted the proposed changes to address the community comments included making the exchange with the Board more interactive, reconfiguring the way the Board is seated in the front, and allowing the Board to respond, as appropriate, to comments and questions from community participants. The PSEC also discussed the planned tribute during the public forum to commemorate Nelson Mandela Day, and the need to consider similar activities in the future when appropriate for the time and place of the scheduled meetings. The PSEC discussed the effectiveness of remote participation in the public forum session, and members of the Committee made suggestions for improvements.

  5. Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Beijing Interactive Community Outreach Session: Staff updated the PSEC on the shared session scheduled in Durban for interaction between the PSEC and the GSE. The discussion is planned to be interactive, and will focus on implementing a master calendar of all Internet governance events around the world, the digital engagement platform, and building the engagement capability on the ground around the world.

  6. Meeting Strategy Working Group: The Chair provided a brief update on the planned working group meeting in Durban to do some strategic work on developing a new meeting strategy.

    • Action:

      • Chair to present results of working group session in September during the Los Angeles retreat.

  7. Language Services: Staff gave the PSEC a brief update of the ongoing work to improve the quality of the translation services provided, and noted the work with GAC translators to improve the translation services to the GAC.

  8. Training, Learning, Capacity Building, Online Education Platform Project: Staff provided the PSEC with an update on the online education platform project, which will provide a means for the ICANN staff and the community to have online, digital courses. The beta launch for the platform is scheduled for the third week of August and will go through the Buenos Aires meeting so that feedback can be received from the community prior to moving into production of the education platform.

  9. AOB: The PSEC thanked Thomas Narten for his service to the Committee.

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."