[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 | 1 December 2020 (13:00 UTC)

Tue Dec 1 14:20:14 UTC 2020

Hello everyone,

Please find enclosed some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP4 meeting, held on 1 December at 13 UTC.

Best regards,

Joke

  1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Kenny Huang (.tw)
Kenny asks if there are any questions or concerns regarding the proposed agenda.
None

Apologies:  Ram Mohan, Mirjana Tasic, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix, Jeff Bedser, Jaap Akkerhuis (late).  Recordings will be posted on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/x/0YzzC

2.                  Administrative items, if any

a.                  Action Items

     *   Timing of calls (rotation vs set time)

Kim prepared an excel table, with example timing for the 15 December meeting, including the 2 extreme timezones: Los Angeles, Tokio.  Sweet spot: 12 UTC and/or 13 UTC.
Rotation? Stick to one set time.
Yuri: prefers the fixed time. 13 UTC
Alireza prefers 14 UTC.
Anybody in favour of rotating?
Suggestion to do a doodle poll regarding the preference for 13 or 14 UTC.

Action item #1:
Staff to set up a doodle poll to determine the best time of the meeting. 2 options: 13 or 14 UTC.

3.                  Timeline / schedule – measuring progress

a.                  What work/documents already exist?

Listed by Bart.
To be posted on the workspace. Documents to be worked on shall be circulated well in advance of the meeting.

     *   Identify subgroups (de-selection, variant management, confusing similarity)

3 sub-WGs have been identified.

     *   Expectations of deliverables

Circulated by Bart yesterday
Timeline. Column 1 lists the full WG and subWGs.
We need to work hard to meet this timeline.
ICANN meetings are useful to inform the broader community on progress of the Working Group.
When should the WG start to establish the subgroups, and how do they relate to the full WG?
By December: complete the section 2.1.1
In January: close the criteria.

Start with the de-selection process.
ccPDP3 has developed a retirement process for ccTLDs, which nears completion.
This week: we have the full WG meeting

  *   Next week: the de-selection WG would meet. Once they finished their work (estimate: by April), they will report back to the full WG. We would then include the suggestions in the overall doc.
  *   Start with variant management in March, assuming the confusing similarity in a reasonable place. Proposed end: june-july
  *   Start with confusing similarity in june-july.
The group may consider whether to run 2 sub-groups in parallel.
1 meeting every week is probably optimal.
Anil: proposes sub-groups in sequence, rather than in parallel.

4.                  Second reading:  section 2.1.1

Version 3.
To ensure consistency with ASCII, the Preliminary Review Team
Last column: should read “comments by the WG”
Original text of item 1.
Alternative text. Jaap double-checked. As expert in iso3166
It sets the tone for the rest of the discussion
Define territory/territories. In line items 1 to 6 a definition was included. Jaap suggests to include a reference to the latest version of the iso standard. Example to be included.
Line items 8-10: captures the original thinking of the WG. boundaries of who/where/association of an IDN ccTLD.

Comments on lines 1 to 6?
Peter: supports the changes proposed by Bart. the 2020 standard by iso did not improve the situation when it comes to terminology clarity.
1 elephant in the room, namely Soviet Union. Be careful when we apply the definition. .su is not exceptionally reserved.
Bart: even if it meets the criteria, there are other criteria which are relevant too.
Basic association of a TLD with a territory. There are outliers. Are they covered by using the other criteria? This is just a basic principle.
Dennis: Is there a benefit to “hardcode” a specific version of the ISO 3166 in the policy, given that the standard is revised every five years?
Bart: agrees. Be careful iso standard changes over time. You need to have a reference included to the external doc as basis for the policy. If the external doc changes, you need to be able to adjust.
Idn cctld methodology which ended up in fast track, but the RFC references were still under development at the time.

Action item #2:
Section 2.1.1 (line 1-6) Staff to adjust the language, with the friendly amendments by Jaap.

lines 8 to 10.

Jiankang: current ccTLDs. Add IDN ccTLD associated with a territory and ascii cctld are eligible to be delegated as an IDN ccTLD. Soviet Union was mentioned as an example.
Bart: if there is a territory, it has a country code. May or not be delegated. .su does exist.
Core: idn ccTLD string should be associated with a territory, not necessarily with an ascii ccTLD

Peter: rewording? Being eligible is not the only criterion. Any string that passes this one, is not automatically eligible.

Action item #3:
Section 2.1.1 (line 8-10) Staff to adjust the language, based on today's discussion.

At least: starting point. If it is not associated with a territory.
Hadia: state it as first and basic principle. Makes it clearer.

⇒ Page 5.
Last time there was an intervention on GAC WG on geographic names. References were circulated.
Bart looked them up. His understanding: it focuses on gTLDs and the use of geographic names in gTLDs. Especially as second level domains.
ccPDPs do not focus on second level: out of scope for ccTLDs
Iso3166 relation with countries, subdivisions and other areas of geopolitical interest. The GAC WG does not include the use of geographic names like this WG does.

⇒ Page 6.
Discussion around inclusion of reference to external standards.
Bart included the fast track implementation plan and what was discussed. Included in this text. Text itself: line 1-6. As a placeholder the icann idn guidelines and reference to RFC6912 were added.

Line 1-6:
Sarmad: is a reference to RZ-LGR needed?
Peter: why did we bracket the icann idn guidelines?
Bart: your comment last time was that idn guidelines are for the second level. Looked it up in the fast track process.  Reference is associated with the top level domain, not just the second level domain.
Peter: we should have a common understanding of the weight of each of these.
Bart: suggested to keep it bracketed, include reference to RZ-LGR. Needs to be referenced in the criteria. To be revisited once we have completed the criteria. Review the text again afterwards.

⇒ page 9

5.                  Introduction of section 2.1.2

Next time we will focus more on this section.
These are the real criteria for the selection of IDN ccTLD strings.
Comments on different sections

Hadia: why do we need “meaningful representation”?
Bart: in the past it was clear that some significantly interested parties did not want to rely on this principle. In some languages 1 character could already be a reference to the name of the country. Some want to associate the idn ccTLD with the ascii ccTLD.
Anil: there are differences between the english speaking countries and the local language. Relation between the 2. Bharat means india. Relation between idn cctld and country needs to be meaningful, and this is clear.
Javier: Is "Designated Language" a UN term d'art or is it a term coined by ICANN?  Would that be explained in footnote 3?
Bart: the fast track process refers to “official language”. Reason for moving to “designated language”: get away to the connotation some have with “official language”. Potentially add foot note
Sarmad: going forward there is a possibility that we allow for variant labels, based on RZ-LGR. More than one string at a given point, possibly.
Bart: indeed. See timeline. Reason why the WG will need to re-visit its original text to understand if it still applies, and where the balance is, if any.
Jaap: what is an official language? Iso uses the term “administrative language”. The us for instance does not have an official language. Main language is not mention in Sweden for instance, but minority languages are.

What is the group’s Preference? First criteria, secondly process and procedures?
Anil: 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 should be discussed together.
Bart: this would mean that we would go over the principles again, then some other criteria, followed by meaningfulness. Makes more sense. You have a comprehensive overview

6.                  Next meetings (time TBD)

See doodle poll.

15 December 2020
12 January 2021
26 January 2021

7.                  AOB

None
Thank you all! Bye.

Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20201201/11255347/attachment-0001.html>