This page is for you to publish your meeting reports for Thursday. Please log in with your email address and password and use the "edit" button to add your report.

Reports from other days:

Saturday, 04 December 2010 Meetings
Sunday, 05 December 2010 Meetings
Monday, 06 December 2010 Meetings
Tuesday, 07 December 2010 Meetings
Wednesday, 08 December 2010 Meetings
Friday, 10 December 2010 Meetings

Question/Answer Open House – Training/Familiarity on ICANN’s Community Wiki

Time: 0900 - 1100
Location: Mirador
Author: DAT

One on one training was delivered in a "drop-in" type of approach by Carroll Cornell.  Any problems that people might have encountered were addressed.

Personally, I learned a lot about what is possible with the new Wiki and gave me ideas on how to improve our own space.

If anybody needs to create a new page, the request needs to go into Heidi or Matthias and they will forward to the appropriate party.

Internet Governance Forum

Time: 1100 - 1230
Location: Barahona 2
Author: DAT, Vivek

We were given an update on the future of the IGF and improvements thereto.

The IGF is a non-decision-making group for open discussion and has many different stakeholders.  Not everybody is comfortable with the multi-stakeholder model with everybody has equal seats with equal say around the room.  This is different from the U.N. where governments have much “say” and others very little.  This is different as there are no concrete outcomes (like a paper) but an open discussion forum.

The next IGF meeting will likely be in Kenya in September, 2011.

The benefits of the IGF are:

No decisions are being made so everybody can share their thoughts

  1. So many workshops generate ideas on policy approaches to internet governance issues.  People can then go home to try to shape regulation with their own people.  This creates a more enabling environment.
  2. It allows interaction from different stakeholders around the world.  There is a real human bridge that is built when people get to know one another and then know who to go to if they have a specific question.
  3. It builds bridges between national and regional levels.
  4. They are starting to move towards openly discussing business and other concerns (since no decisions are made).

    * The IGF has been consistently improving over the past five years.* They are concerned that the idea of IGF improvements could be elaborated by one person but need, rather, a collective mode to move this forward

ICANN Public Forum

Time: 1330 - 1830
Location: Getsemani
Author: DAT

The following issues were discussed:

  • New gTLD Issues Raised at this Meeting
  • ATRT Report and Draft Recommendations
  • ICM's Request for xxx Sponsored Top Level Domain
  • ICANN Strategic Plan

    Other reports:

  • Thanks to the Departing Supporting Organization Volunteer Leadership and Boar Liaisons
  • Host of ICANN 40 Silicon Valley SF Meeting
  • Report from the Chair of the Nominating Committee
  • Office of the Ombudsman:  Remarks at Cartagena Public Forum and Thanks to the Ombudsman

Internationalized Registration Data Working Group

Time: 09:30 - 11:00
Room: Barahona 3
Author: James Seng

This is a cross constituency working group between the GNSO and SSAC to deal with internationalization of registration data in whois with the introduction of IDN.

The IRD-WG initial report expressed concerned whether the whois protocol is able to handle the query and display of internationalized registration data. However, it is deem the work to find a replacement for whois is beyond the scope of the working group.

The initial report also discussed the different internationized registration elements that should be stored in the whois database and there are four different models for it.

  • Model 1: Registrants provide domain contact data in “Must Be Present” script (e.g. English)
  • Model 2: Registrants provide data in any registrar-accepted script and registrars provide point of contact for transliteration or translation.
  • Model 3: Registrants provide data in script accepted by the registrar and registrars provide transliteration tools to publish in “Must be Present” script.
  • Model 4: Registrants provide data in language accepted by the registrar and registrars provide translation tools to publish in “Must be Present” language.
  • No labels