[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES & ACTION ITEMS | ccPDP4 WG | 15 December 2020 (13:00 UTC)

Tue Dec 15 13:57:42 UTC 2020

NOTES | ccPDP4 WG | 15 December 2020 (13:00 UTC)

ACTION ITEMS

Action item #1:

Group to revisit the original Board Report in approx 4 meetings from now.

Action item #2

(2.1.2 and 2.1.3 combined) Staff to strike line 8-9 and 11. Not delete it yet.

Action item #3

(2.1.2 and 2.1.3 combined) Staff to update the section (lines 13-18), to refer to the definition that was previously adopted.

Action item #4

·         ccPDP4 WG members to prepare questions or comments on the text ahead of the 12 January meeting: Meaningfulness criteria and related process and procedures

·         Staff to share URL (Meaningfulness criteria and related process and procedures)

NOTES

  1.  Welcome and Roll Call

Welcome by Chair Kenny Huang (.tw)

Apologies from Alireza.

Recordings will be posted here, as well as other materials from today’s meeting: https://community.icann.org/x/4IzzC

2.                  Administrative matters

     *   Action items

4 from the previous meeting. Scheduling of the future meetings (AI#1): completed

3 ongoing, to be addressed today.

13 UTC as preferred time for future meetings. To be revised when daylight saving time comes.

3.                  2nd reading Section 2.1.1

Bart updated the previous versions based on the discussions and Jaap’s friendly amendment.

  *   Patrick F: Please check if not also RFC8753 should be referenced. It is a clarification of the iDNA RFCs. But yes, we can wait and re-review
  *   Principle number 3: to be revisited later on

4.                  Introduce discussion document criteria and processes and procedure combined (2.1.2 and 2.1.3 combined)

From the initial Board Report. Introduction by Bart

Action item #1:

Group to revisit the original Board Report in approx 4 meetings from now.

In 4 meetings, we revisit the original board report. check what we addressed: what needs to be updated? Comparison for the group. Staff to clean up the document, to make it easier to revisit.

Fast track process required that all characters were in a none-latin script

  *   Lines 3-11

Dennis: What are we solving for? IDN designation of fast track process is to provide terioties to have a TLD that reflects the name of the territory against their language. Discriminatory against the latin names?

Bart: own language could be in ASCII too. This PDP provides for IDN ccTLDs

Peter: same issue with the examples. Use of plural (these criteria) suggests that espana for instance is already eligible. Explicitly mention that these are fictitious examples.

Bart: need to meet all the other criteria. This focuses only on this specific criterion

Patrik: needs to be rewritten for consistency reasons. There are other characters, other than a-z / 0-9, that are still ascii.

Patrick. Rephrase line 8-9. The document should just use a consistent terminology and regarding U-Label and A-Label it can take into account the fact A-Label and U-Label is a 1:1 mapping.

Bart: no added value. Strike this. Will be revisited when we talk about the technical criteria

Peter: delete line 11.

Action item #2

Staff to strike line 8-9 and 11. Not delete it yet.

Anil: what if a territory is not included in iso3166 but meets all other criteria. Suggestion to have it listed in a about a 1 year time

Bart: if the WG would do that, it would overstep the boundaries of what ccTLDs are

Needs to be listed, before it is ready for delegation. Potential listing is a dangerous avenue. IANA not to define what is a country, to be eligible for a ccTLD.

Peter: the use of the word territory is confusing. Cats and dogs islands examples.

Bart: “territory” is defined in the principles we just adopted

Peter: sub-territories listed. my concern is that we accidentally introduce a way for sub parts of the ‘country’ to be eligible for an ‘IDN ccTLD’ when that subpart is ‘listed’ but does not have a code on its very own; maybe the headline here is confusing me rather than the text itself

Jaap: many territories are listed, but that does not mean that they have an alpha2-code officially assigned, and that is relevant. E.g. SH has some islands listed in the remarks column, but they do not have a code.

Action item #3

Staff to update the section (lines 13-18), to refer to the definition that was previously adopted.

Yudho: Indonesia has many islands. Each province has own language. Bali is a sub-devision of Indonesia. Although Bali has its own language, the official language is indonesian. If Bali wants an IDN, should 3166 be changed first?

Bart: first step is to get Bali recognised as a territory. In NL, some cities and provinces have their own gTLDs. Not enough that it is listed as a sub-devision. Needs to have a 2-letter code

Jaap: 3166 refuses to give 2-letter codes simply for the purpose of having an own TLD.

Recap: revise criteria 1 and 2 during the next meeting. update territory and references and use the agreed definitions.

Meaningfulness criteria and related process and procedures: Bart suggests to address this during the next meeting. First reading through all the criteria at once.

Kenny agrees, Anil as well.

Action item #4

ccPDP4 WG members to prepare questions or comments on the text ahead of the 12 January meeting: Meaningfulness criteria and related process and procedures

5.                  Next meetings

12 January 2021, 13.00 UTC

26 January 2021, 13.00 UTC

09 February 2021, 13.00 UTC

23 February 2021, 13.00 UTC

5.                  AOB

Anil and Kenny wish all a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

6.                  Closure

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/20201215/9c7c38b8/attachment-0001.html>