[ccPDP4-IDNWG] NOTES | ccPDP4 | 20 Feb 2024 (13 UTC)

Tue Feb 20 13:54:11 UTC 2024

NOTES | ccPDP4 | 20 Feb 2024 (13 UTC)

  1.  Welcome

Welcome by Chair Kenny
Apologies from Irina and Patricio

2.            Admin matters

a.            SOI updates

None

b.    Result Council meeting regarding Rec. 14 Phase 2 GNSO EPDP

Bart: council deliberations on 15 Feb.  The Council expressed no objection to taking on role as envisioned, however it may comment on the wording as will be proposed. Bart informed Ariel.  The GNSO PDP WG will take into account the deliberations.
Hadia: the group refined the recommendation. The Board WG or its successor to be responsible for drafting the charter. The recommendation is not yet final. The input from this group was however taken into consideration. Responsibilities are clear. No chicken and egg issue any longer.
Bart: the ccnso council will keep an eye out for the public comment opportunity

3.            Reading updated section final report

Start with the executive summary, then the reading guide. Numbering has changed.
Change log:

i.Part O – separated reading guide and context and introduction.
ii.Reading Guide is now section 2 . Added subsection to explain structure of final report ( what reader will see in Part O , Part A, Part B and Part C)
iii.Numbering of sections part O has been adjusted
iv.Updated section 5.2.1 per suggestion of Michael, and included his note int eh Notes and observation section
v.Section 7.9 is now definitely no longer part of the document
                                           vi.Update section 14.2.1 and 14.2.2 following up on Irina’s suggestion.
vii.Updated numbering part C – Annexes.

>>> Section 5.2.

Hadia: labels that are almost the same as the original string. I agree with the definition, but does it require further elaboration?
Michael: not necessary for me. I do not disagree to describing it a bit more. Perhaps add a note. Move it to the note and observations? Agree with Hadia’s suggestion.
Bart: in this context it is about RZ-LGR. Add colour to the definition.

Sarmad: implies that the allocatable labels … fine with the implicit understanding that conditions would apply. Is it clarified?
Bart: clarified in the text
Sarmad: thanks.
In the next paragraph. The way it is written, it requires compliance with all versions of RZ-LGR. Implied: latest version of RZ-LGR.
Bart: captured. Language has been around since the initial report. See rest of the text regarding RZ-LGR. If there is an issue, it needs to be grandfathered.
Bart: friendly amendment?
Michael: yes
Hadia: yes

Peter: red mark. Hadia addressed much of what i was struggling with. Even with that friendly amendment, I still miss the finite nature of the definition language. Where is the definition? Or is this just a description?
Bart: yes. Maybe “description of variants”
Michael: it is essentially a definition of variants. We do not define them though. We state where you can read the definition.
Bart: in the reading guide, the headings do not make part of the text itself. Just “variants”?
Peter: yes. It is all about perception. Let’s avoid confusing headlines
Jiankang: the general idea is ok. Suggests the 3rd sentence is more precise.
Bart: move the first sentence to the notes and observations.
Jiankang: agree

Michael:
The set of variant labels of a given (IDN*) ccTLD string or label is defined by the RZ-LGR. It is calculated by the RZ-LGR using the selected ccTLD string as the primary label. This calculation also assigns exactly one of two disposition values to each variant label (allocatable or blocked). Only the allocatable labels may be eligible for allocation or delegation as a top-level domain. See RFC 8228 for details.

Group agrees

>>> Section 7.9

Suggestion by Irina

Peter: why “and operational”?
Bart: maybe it is still in planning phase. Operational as “being in effect”.
Peter: who is in charge?
Bart: icann org
Peter: so we expect an announcement when the FTP closes.
Bart: yes

Anna: when new request, under which regime?
Bart: basic principle that FTP is an ongoing process. Implementation may take half a year, or longer. We do not know
Peter: it is useful to have a transition mechanism identified. Do we expect a rush into the FTP? As it might be beneficial for the requesters?
Bart: hope not. But the basic criteria are the same . FTP is not a policy.
Peter: probably out of scope, but how does grandfathering work?
Bart: example around Confusing Similarity of variants and its potential impact. If you do not allow grandfathering, an IDN cctld that was delegated as part of the FTP.could<ftp://FTP.could> be considered similar to another string. Then you foresee grandfathering.
Peter: we also addressed the retirement. That was not addressed in the FTP.
With this transition clause, do we have 2 classes of IDN ccTLDs? Those originating to the FTP, and those originating from the policy?
Bart: if you meet the retirement criteria, then you retire. If the retirement policy would have been in place 5 years ago …

4.            Temperature of the room / support of WG for final text of the final report

Final poll, meeting #67

[cid:image001.png at 01DA640C.A976EEE0]

5.            Next steps: timeline decision making

Timeline was shared with council last week.

23 Feb: distributed to council
Request to GAC for opinion and advice
6 March: regular council meeting at ICANN79
12 march: members report, including council’s recommendation submitted to members
Also pre-announcement of a members’ vote
21 march: webinar
27 march - 17 april: members vote
21 may - 11 june: 2nd round members vote if needed
12 june: submission Board Report

WG will be dormant, until the Board made a final decision on the policy recommendations.

6.            Presentation community update ICANN79

Bart: slide deck was shared on mailing list

  *   Agenda
  *   What happened at icann77
  *   Latest updates
  *   Questions (re-use those from ICANN77?)

Kenny: how much time do we have?
Bart: 60 min. Probably a bit less. Cocktail starts after this.

7.            AOB

Kenny: thank you for contributing your time the past 3 years. Especially thanks to Bart and Kim

8.            Closure

No next meeting. See you at ICANN79

Joke Braeken
joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>

ICANN79 links to bookmark now

  *   ccNSO Schedule
https://community.icann.org/x/MIEJEQ

  *   ccNSO Session Highlights
https://community.icann.org/x/jIEvEQ

  *   Tech Day
https://community.icann.org/x/T4EJEQ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20240220/2f5d2b69/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 70871 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp4-idnwg/attachments/20240220/2f5d2b69/image001-0001.png>