[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN WG meeting #19 | 20 July 2021 (13:00 UTC)

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN WG meeting #19 | 20 July 2021 (13:00 UTC)

1. Welcome, roll call and agenda bashing

Welcome by chair Kenny Huang (.tw)

2. Administrative matters

a. Action items, if any

None. Bart updated notes from last time, and circulated the doc. We are on track.

3. Subgroup update

a. Variant Management – Alireza or Dennis

Dennis gave an update regarding the work by the subgroup. Last time the recommendation was around the RZ-LGR to validate TLDs and calculate variant labels. Confirmed principle of same entity for variant label management. Needs to be the ccTLD manager.  No management of variants at top level. Certain restrictions for ccNSO. We need to look at it holistically. Discussions by the sub-group continue.
Bart: VM-sub group will come up with recommendations for the full group on variant management. They will also come up with changes for the process by the full group. Impact of the process designed now needs to be looked into.

4. Section 5, 6, 7 and 8:  second reading

>>> Section 5

Sections before already discussed. We concluded the 2nd reading of the previous sections of this doc.
Section 5.2. Page 12.
Sub-group will come up with a suggestion for the full group to discuss. Reflects the discussions to date. Reflects what the VM-subgroup is expected to do.

Sarmad: authenticated translation?
Bart: a certified translation
Sarmad: certification could come from outside the country? In some countries no certification available
Bart: yes, can come from outside the country.
Sarmad: ads another step in the process. We need to verify the certification.
Bart: other option is to ask for an english translation.

Anil: we are not permitting that an applicant can submit in EN and in the designated language where the string is requested for?
Bart: has to be either in English or if a requester feels that the submission should be made in the designated language, there should be a certified translation.
How certified translation can be structured: In some cases it is coming from the government, in some cases it needs to come from a certified translator.

Is the group ok with 5.2?

Sarmad: caveat that we come back to the section once the VM-subgroup has finalised this work?
Bart: indeed. Work by VM-group will have an impact on various parts of this document. Needs to be revisited in its entirety

>>> Section 6

We started the discussion at the last meeting. Added comments from the previous meeting.
What type of complaint is relevant? Who should be allowed to submit a complaint? What does it mean? Should we introduce a complaint process as part of the PDP, or refer to other processes, such as IRP?
Dennis: complaint as in dispute or objection to the string?
Bart: see discussion with Jiankang last time. Peter Koch mentioned this is something for the stress test.
Needs to be solid enough to deal with these issues. Stress test may result in changes to the policy.
Group agrees to include it as a stress test.

In terms of the publication of the variant string. Which to include, which not?
Section 6. Line item 10 to 12. (caveat: VM-group will revisit this)

>>> Section 7

Some Green marks checked, no red marks

>>> Section 8

Remark by Sarmad:  Again for transfer, there will be implications due to variant TLD labels
Bart: Broader discussion with IANA needed. Delegation, transfer and retirement is in principle outside of remit of this WG.  To be revisited. Check to see if there is a need to change the iana procedures.

5. Start section 9 (misc.)

Broader notions. Background on this section provided by Bart. Why were they included at the time? Might be helpful for further discussions.
Notion: IDN ccTLDs are ccTLDs. Variant Management might cause deviation. But in principle the same treatment as ASCII ccTLDs. (delegation, transfer, revocation)

Section B. confidentiality.
Allows people to change the application in the process. Face-saving operation. Confidential communication between ICANN org, requester and panels

Section C. list over time
ccPDP2 was developed prior to the applicant guidebook. 2007-2011. Contentious discussion in the new gTLD process on the use of country and territory names as new gTLDS. Resolution provided via AGB. confirmed in sub pro.

Section E.
Review of a policy. Good idea or not? What would be the most optimal period? Periodic? Or when circumstances demand?

Process-management:

  *   Verification of implementation. The ccNSO does not have a mechanism. GNSO has a procedure in place in terms of the implementation of the proposed policies. We could refer to that.
  *   Creation of a permanent IDN ccTLD Advisory Panel?

6. AOB

none

7. Next meeting

03 August 2021 | 13:00 UTC
17 August 2021 | 13:00 UTC

Kenny: Additional sub-WG volunteers needed for the new sub-group, in August.

8. Closure

Bye all.



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20210720/17dfb3cb/attachment-0001.html>