[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 | 9 Feb 2021 (13 UTC)

Tue Feb 9 14:09:05 UTC 2021

Hello everyone,

Please find included below some high-level notes which may help you navigate through the call.

Best regards,

Joke Braeken

  1.  Welcome, Roll call and Agenda Bashing

Welcome by Chair Kenny

Recordings will be posted on the public workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/Xw1ACQ

2.                   Administrative matters

a.                  Action Items

Overview by Kim

b.      Membership variant management sub-working group

Alireza as chair of the sub-WG. Additional members: Michael Bauland, Dennis Tan, Hadia  Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi, Jiankang Yao, Yuri Takamatsu, Mohammad Mamun Or Rashid, Ai-Chun Lu, Jaap Akkerhuis. (ICANN staff)Pitinan Kooarmornpatana, (ICANN Staff)Sarmad Hussain

ccNSO Secretariat will reach out to GNSO support staff too.

How to proceed regarding the appointment of the Vice-Chair of the sub-WG. Staff created an email list for the sub-WG. All volunteers will be added to the mailing list. Secretariat will send out data consent forms prior to subscribing the members. Based on a recently developed procedure, Secretariat will circulate an email with a call for nominations for vice-chair position. Selection process by sub-WG. Appointment of the chair and vice chair of the sub-WG, by chair and vice-chair of the full WG.

c.       Progress report update community webinar

After ICANN70, mid-april,  there will be a 90 min webinar with Q&A. ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP4 will update the community on progress to date. ccPDP3-RM will use the opportunity to ask some questions to the audience.  Target audience is the ccTLD community membership and GAC. However, open to all interested. Tentatively scheduled around 14 or 15 April. 2 editions of the same webinar: one in LAC/NA timezone, and one more convenient for the AP timezone. Early morning or later evening for EU/AF.

3.                   Confirm proposed changes to combined document (2.1.1 and 2.13) section 1 and 2

Overview by Bart

4.                   2nd reading section 3.1 and 3.2 consolidation document

3.1: no further comments

3.2: overview by Bart regarding the major changes made

Peter: question regarding goals. In other ccPDP WG we had stress tests on criteria. Would something similar be useful here?

Bart: stress test is of added value. Makes sense to do so, when you develop the policy recommendations.

Significantly interested parties in a country. Gvt role. Sensitivities in this area, discussions in the GAC around the second level.

If there is no limit for the number of languages, you end up with 1.7 million IDN ccTLDs, which would be unmanageable. Factual issue the fast track WG and ccPDP2 had to deal with at the time.

5.                   Update terminology document (reflecting definitions 2.1.1 and combined documents [2.1.2 and 2.1.3] and sections 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2)

Reflects the discussions to date.

Terms and definition: cut/paste description from the doc itself.

Glossary, basic doc with all technology used.

ISO3166 standard

6.                   First reading remainder section 3 – time permitting

Section 3.3.

If there is >1 designated language

Is the language written, or does it use more scripts?

Yudho: UNEGN published in 2002, nearly 20 years ago, isn’t there any more recent publication from UN?

Bart: no more recent version available

Notes and comments: not intended to be part of the policy itself.

Hadia: if chinese has 2 scripts for the same character, and the simplified version would be registered, the other version would be considered the variant?

Bart: no. this is about top level domains. Both TLDs have been assigned to CNNIC but also TWNIC in the case of Taiwan and HKNIC in the case of Hong Kong. this is not about second or lower level domains.

Sarmad: would depend on what would be considered being the same script. In the han script, the simplified and traditional chinese are part of the han script. Could be potentially variants. But in other cases where you have different scripts in the same country (Singapore: han, tamil, latin). When deciding whether the TLDs are variants or independent, it would depend on whether they are the same script or language.

Bart: the chinese idns are considered variants, although there is no policy around variants? At the time they were considered different TLDSs

Sarmad: suggested definition of RZ-LGR

Bart: grandfathered as part of the policy

Sarmad: 2 strings delegated as separate TLDs would need to be grandfathered, or, …. Separate discussion.

Peter: asymmetry in the 2 paragraphs. The designated languages, the labels, should not be confused with an existing IDN ccTLD string. At the same time, when we talk about a single language and the language being expressed in multiple scripts, there is no non-confusion requirement. Why is that ok?

Bart: cannot be confused with… as in the first-come, first-served principle.

Add the time, it was introduced as a clarification for the discussion. Maybe we should start thinking about the introduction of a designated script. Scripts used for designated languages.

Alireza: TLD language is ASCII. 2 direction: defining 2 letter code to country, and then assignment at icann. Another doc that identifies the country names? Is it ok to be assigned to a country or not

No mixing of languages within the domain. Domain does not have a language.

Bart: going back 12 years. First discussions between GAC and ccNSO how to structure discussion around IDN ccTLDS. Mechanism how IDN ccTLDs are selected in countries. Way a territory is listed in iso3166. Up to the country to determine what is the relation with the territory (name).

Alireza: using the word language does not reflect what happens in the DNS. You can only say what script it comes from. We need to stop using language and start using the term script.

Jiankang: per script. For the chinese example. In fast track simplified and traditional chinese strings are separate, as different scripts, but not as variants. Because in FT there was no procedure. If we get 2 strings for the same wording: not possible at the time. RFC4743: simplified and traditional chinese are variants. ICANN already formed chinese LGR.

Bart: as discussed with Sarmad, similar suggestion. Grandfathering clause already in the proposals.

Mirjana: latin generation panel lead. 200 languages, using lating script. No decision according to languages. Tried to process all languages using specific scripts. Wrote in proposal that the use of language is not important when creating TLDs. possibility to use a label which means something in a language, but not important to use languages in label definition. See what Alireza said.

Bart: suggestion to re-visit this and to check the alternative what would happen if we go down the path of scripts. We need to understand what the impact is. We have historical baggage.

Sarmad: language used in multiple scripts. Use of language may not be “official” in some cases. Any of the scripts in which the language is written? Only in certain scripts? Would there be a limitation on not just the language, but also on scripts?

Bart: needs to be discussed also in context of what Alireza and Mirjana raised

Alireza: the gvt decides what represents the country in written.  There should be another doc defining the country or territory in different scripts. Work on that as list of country names

Mirjana: dot serb idn ccTLD. Big consultations in the community on what would be the idn ccTLD. Request from FT process. 1st face: propose idn ccTLD, and then voting in community. Majority voted for 2 suggestions (SRB in cyryllic and serbia in cyricllic). Applied for the 2, eventually got the first one. This is how the things could be done

Jaap: why do we have this discussion again? We had this discussion before.

Be careful. Iso standard contains the Listing name of countries in french and english transliteration.

Alireza: designated label. 3 different stages to assign a label.

Bart: doc based on FT process. Scope of this WG. reinventing the whole mechanism again creates a whole set of issues. WG could note what does not work. Or go forward within scope. Issues outside of scope should be noted as such. Is that the case? Appreciation for wanting a different foundation for selecting IDN ccTLDS, but that is out of scope of this ccPDP4.

Alireza: make sure we understand the scope. That doc is the base. We should work on top of that.

Bart: we should question the doc, this is an opportunity to improve

Kenny suggests to continue discussions in the next meeting.

7.                   Next meeting

note due to ICANN70, no teleconferences are scheduled during the weeks of 22 March and 29 March.

a.                  Full Group (13:00 UTC)

23 February

9 March

6 April

20 April

b.      Variant management sub-group (time TBD)

2 March

16 March

13 April

27 April

8.                   AOB

None

9.                   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/20210209/986b2038/attachment-0001.html>