[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN (full) WG and DES SG | 1 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC

[Joke Braeken]

NOTES | ccPDP4 IDN (full) WG and DES SG | 1 March 2022 at 13:00 UTC



1. Welcome


Welcome by Chair Kenny


https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=184994911


2. Administrative matters


Formation of Confusing Similarities call for volunteers / leadership appointment

29 March kick-off 13:00 UTC


Members:

Ai Chin Lu

Svitlana Tkachenko

Mirjana Tasić

Hadia Elminiawi

Jaap Akkerhuis

Kenny Huang

Anil Kumar Jain


Svitlana volunteered to be Vice Chair for the Sub-Group, Anil volunteered for the role of Chair.

Thanks to both


Bart: or AOB.

On the previous council meeting, thebccNSO agreed to look for a liaison to the UASG. staff will circulate a call for volunteers today or tomorrow.

Council discussed the topic of UA and agreed to check whether there is a need for the broader community to check if there is a need to bring together various initiatives. To be explored in future. Not intended to duplicate efforts.

Ai Chin: yes, discussed by Council. Council could play a role. Info sharing and knowledge sharing. Create UA readiness survey. Important for the ccNSO. To be explored.

Irina: involve whole ccNSO membership, or only those directly involved? We will look for candidates for the liaison role


3. Introduce Deselection Proposal – second reading


Explanation of recommendations

Seek feedback and input

Next steps for DES SG

Comments by Irina as sent to mailing list

Irina : Potential situation when 2 countries are merged. If the countries are close to eachother and have the same language/script. How will the proposed principle work? Suggest to treat this as a case for stress-testing.

Bart: noted

Merging happened in the past. E.g. East and West Germany merged in 1990. One was removed from ISO-list (dd)

Jaap: dd never had an allocation. Did not matter from an internet point of view

Peter: no idns either. No change of name for DD

Bart: removal from ISO-list itself is a trigger event

Jaap: merging an IDN could also be an option. The outcome of the trigger event could be anything.

Bart: trigger event. Merge is a different matter

One has an idn in irina’s example

Peter: question is, could that IDN ccTLD have been re-attached from DD to DE?

Jaap: yes, is possible

Irina: good solution for me

Bart: do agree we handle this case for a stress test?

No red marks in zoom

Bart: we will revisit this. Stress-test is used to check the policy. Does it provide the necessary answers, under the scenario of the stress test?

Bart: do you still support the text of principle one, in second reading?

No red marks

Irina: The text may still be adjusted based on stress-test?

Bart: yes


>>> Section 1.3.1.

Irina sent comments to mailing list

Bart: if it is no longer a meaningful representation, having an idn representing the name of the cuntry. That is the underlying assumption.  If there is no request, the idn could linger on.

Balanced approach. Initiative from a ccTLD, events in territory

Not prescriptive, not forcing ICANN to check every day or every entry, or change in designated script. Assuming the SIP, the requestors  and the IDN ccTLD manager are reasonable.

Irina: no intention to force icann to seek actively. Take opposite side. Expects icann not to take actions, unless a request comes in from the territory. Needs to be a legitimate request. No actions on their own.

Bart: ICANN to be passive?

Jiankang: agrees with passive mode

Agrees with Irina’s comments.

Peter: does not understand concern. Icann is not expected to actively seek. But is the intent to make icann not see what it could see, if it is informed?

Bart: what is your concerns, Irina, Jiankang?

Irina: the current wording leaves icann the possibility to initiate any actions regarding this idn ccTLD, on its own.

Bart: yes, they will check whether the language is still a designated language. Needs to be a meaningful representation, and script needs to be still valid. SIP can still confirm.

Irina: expects the policy to be clear. Where can/should icann act?

Peter: that clarifies matters. To avoid harassment by icann to proof that you still fill requirements, that is covered by “icann should not actively seek”. If icann finds out one language or script is no longer supported, and icann learned about this, do we want icann not to be able to go after this?

Bart: requirements is statement of dissociation before a step is taken. Statement by idn cctld manager, or requestor? Shall be retired, if not provided in timely manner

Bart: question for Irina and Jiankang. Statement of disassociation, would that address your concern? There is always one step in between.

Irina: need to reflect on this

Bart: we could address this in stress-testing

Do you agree with 1.3 as it is?

No red marks


Peter: no issue with change of timeframe. But imagine a reader a year from now.

Why did we pick 3 months?

Bart: text around termination clause

Irina’s concerns to be further discussed in future.

Bart: role of icann. Agreement?

No red marks

Bart: stress-test, and change of 3-4 months into 3

Any concerns?

No red marks


Bart: to be detailed in stress-testing.

Any other questions or concerns?

None

Are you in support?


Bart: No reason to capitalise “must”. Lower case is sufficient

Any questions or comments regarding section 2.3


Bart: thank you. Group accepts the DES-mechanism. Note: stress test still needed

Congratulations to DES-Group by Bart and Kenny.


4. ICANN73 – update to the community/GAC – Slides/presentation


Kenny talks to the slide deck

The joint session with GAC is scheduled for 8 March, 1300-1400 UTC (block 1)

Peter: agrees with everything. How much time is there for this presentation? What is the expectation towards the GAC? Concern is that the GAC might not be familiar with certain concepts. E.g. stress test, territory vs country. Can we expand on this?

Kenny: agrees. We have 10 min speaking time. Same concerns. Acronyms might be an issue too.

Bart: fully agrees. But, this is not intended to inform them about all the details. Show them where we are, we had discussions before. This is also for the broader community. The group did not have an update at icann since june last year. More extensive session at ICANN74. Just progress to date. Not intended to educate GAC, but to show we are making progress.

Kenny: also offer them to explain matters more in depth in future. For instance at ICANN74.

Anil: concurs


5. Next meetings:


8 March | 13:00-14:00 UTC – ICANN73 Joint meeting: ccNSO-GAC

22 March | 14:00 UTC – Variant Management SG

29 March | 13:00 UTC – Confusing Similarities SG Kick-off (timing and meeting cadence will be discussed)


6. AOB


Bart: this closes for the time being the meetings by the full WG. the full WG will meet again once the VM was included in the basic doc. The VM-subgroup will need to sign off the proposals. That will be end March-early May.

Anil: requests all full WG members to be present at ICANN73 during joint meeting ccNSO & GAC


Bart: thanks to Anil and Svitlana for leading the DES-group. This group has completed its work. We will close the mailing list of the WG and inform all involved in ccPDP4

Kenny: thank to Anil and Svitlana, and congratulations to all involved in work by DES-Group


7. Closure



Thank you. bye



Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20220301/a0ad6695/attachment-0001.html>