[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN WG | 6 April 2021 (13:00 UTC)

Tue Apr 6 14:19:41 UTC 2021

Dear All,

Please find included below some high-level notes from today’s ccPDP4 IDN full-group meeting, held on 6 April at 13 UTC.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

1.  Welcome, roll call and agenda bashing

Welcome by Chair Kenny Huang. Telco #13

Workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/UwFtCQ

2.  Administrative matters

                  a. Action items, if any

                  b. Update liaison to GNSO

ccNSO Council appointed Alireza to GNSO policy development effort

3.  Subgroup update

a.   Variant Management – Alireza or Dennis

Update by Dennis. The sub-group is currently going through the definitions and terminology

4.  Webinar draft slides

No comments regarding the slides that were previously circulated

5.  Continue discussion – Criteria, Procedures and documentation

a.  Second reading sections 3-4

3.3. Adopted: Previous meeting we discussed the need to include a reference to “designated script”. At the end of the section. Perhaps to include the reference to “designated script” in section 3.3 or 3.7? To be determined later.

Sarmad: In case a country does not have a naming authority, is there an alternative mechanism to determine the meaningfulness of a string?

Bart: see line 13 to 16

Javier: who determines who is the authority?

Bart: established in-territory. The national naming authorities or national linguistic authorities.

Not up to iana to determine what is or what is not a country. Same principle applies here.

Oksana: Are there any examples of appealing in court the decision of such authority? (based on Fast track experience)

Sarmad: there have been cases, but never real issues.

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/publications.html

Jiankang: another standard to limit the scope ? in a future new version of unicode, adds a new word. But what if this applies as a TLD and is not allowed in the IDN standard?

Bart: to revisit later. Take into account the other script-related requirements. This is not the only requirement.

Jaap: IDNA is not about unicode. IETF is tracking the first versions of unicode. Currently processing v11 of Unicode. see: https://www.iana.org/assignments/idna-tables-11.0.0/idna-tables-11.0.0.xml

Bart: could this format work? Need for a reference to a script. Is this a way to reference to a script?

Sarmad: as far as script names are concerned. ISO15924 standard used for script names. Unicode also lists scripts. The challenge in referring to unicode: it does not get automatically adopted in IDNA standard.

Bart: the reference to unicode version is not correct. Would a reference to the IDNA tables themselves work? Are scripts listed there? As a set of characters. Would also resolve Jiankang’s concern probably

Sarmad: agree.

Refer to the IDNA2008 standard as based on the latest version of unicode.

Latest unicode version processed for IDNA2008.

Bart: would this work for you Jiankang?

Jiankang: yes, thank you

Any other comments or concerns?

Jiankang: for → by?

Sarmad: Scripts included in the IDNA2008 as applied to the latest version of Unicode

Jaap: WOrdsmithing needed… ADNA 2008 i RFC XXXX and updates

Javier: Its clear, of course, that the pertinent Territory itself determines as per its processes, who the pertinent "Naming Authority" is, but my question is, is there something in ccNSO, some sort of accreditation step like what happens in GAC, where a Nation establishes its credentials to be able to join GAC, and then GAC makes a decision of whether or not to allow membership? For example, is it that the pertinent Territories' ccTLD manager informs ccNSO who that Naming Authority is and that fact remains stable until officially changed again after a similar process?

Peter: “should be non controversial”. Does that mean “rough consensus”? There is no definition.

Bart: if there is no counter-voice

Peter: needs to happen by the significantly interested parties. Wonders about the direction of language. Consensus would be received better

Bart: see FOI

Jiankang: line 22. How to define contentious? What is the rule?

Bart: evidenced by the support. It is an internal matter.

If you look at definition of significantly interested parties, iit includes a government. If a government or territorial authority objects, it is contentious. Same way as delegations are dealt with.

Peter: I said controversial where it reads contentious ; is ‘not contentious’ equivalent to ‘full consensus’?

Oksana: Competing requests - are we talking about the same IDNs for the territory or about IDNs in the same language?

Bart: non-contentious. What is consensus within country or by the SIP? Does non-objection imply consensus?

Sarmad: line 25. 2 steps:

  1.  String evaluation process
  2.  Iana delegation process

Until what time is the second delegation concurrent? If the string evaluation for one string has been concluded, but not been delegated, is it still concurrent?

Bart: no. but need to check time involved. To what point can someone apply for a concurrent IDN string? Major issue in the territory, since both need to be supported by the local authorities.

Mirjana: designated language. Rephrase.

Bart: originally it read “local internet community”. LIC should be involved and determines what string should be. After the fast track was designed, the FOI defined “significantly interested parties”. That is the current language

Anil: 4.2.1.b. Anyone from any other country can object?

Bart: “for the territory associated”. Makes it clear that it is SIP, and makes it non-contentious in the country.

Svitlana: str. 10 “demonstrate that it is has a direct …”  Typo?  Should be “it has” ?

Oksana: I absolutely understand, that this is not the issue of ICANN/IANA, but can we get the list of disputed territories? Maybe from UN?

Bart: “territories” in this policy have a specific meaning. The ones in the iso3166 standard.  What do you mean by “disputed”?

If a country would vanish or change its name, it could impact in the sense of de-selection of the IDN ccTLD string.

Peter: since there’s no IDN ccTLD without an ISO3166 ccTLD, the parties in the territory should be known?

Oksana: Crimea, Transnistria, Karabach

Bart: not included in the standard, therefore not eligible.

Peter: this is why ‘territory’ might be misunderstood

Question by Anil.

Bart: there will always be a relevant government or public authority and they must be involved in the process. At a minimum they must express their non-objection. Hence the negative phrasing. Support for a ccTLD string might be considered counterproductive

Oksana: non objection - how to demonstrate it?

Peter: previous use in similar cases? Stick to that language

Bart: that is the previous language.

Peter: and in other contexts?

Bart: in the Fast Track Implementation Plan.

Not controversial. It worked

Peter: possible contention at the horizon. Going back to FOI. when the SIP were adopted as the concept, how their collective wisdom was captured as consensus or non objection

Bart: will include reference to FOI

b.  First 5.1 (5.2 exempt), time permitting

To be deferred to next meeting, as suggested by Kenny.

But Bart already runs through this quickly, as a heads-up.

Specification of one of the principles. Number 3 or 4 on the stability and security.

  *   Must abide: Include at least one ASCII character. Strong language. Technical check. If you do not meet that check, it is end of story
  *   Around confusing similarity. Originally envisaged as specification, detailing the broad principle of security and stability.

Next meeting: focus on 5.1 and the relevant part of section 6.

6.  AOB

none

7.  Next meeting

15 April | ccPDP3 & ccPDP4 update to the community (and GAC) webinar | 8 and 16 UTC

20 April | full IDN WG meeting | 13:00 UTC

8.  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/20210406/39fa12eb/attachment-0001.html>