<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Rubens,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Noted that ICANN takes the position an application and evaluation is required to delegate an IDN TLD that constitutes a variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD. You point out that registries strongly disagree
with this approach and that the Sub Pro WG has not fully discussed this issue. Based on the last call, I think many of us are still confused as to whether we are saying that the Registry Agreements must be modified to permit “application” for these IDN variants
or to permit “activation” of the IDN variant. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">One of the issues in the Implementation document for IDN variants appears to be the question of string similarity. Apparently the IDN variant may need to go through a string similarity evaluation before being
delegated. In addition, according to the paper linked below, both Objection Processes and “failure modes” have to be evaluated (as to security and stability considerations per SAC 60.) All of this is discussed in the document you referenced:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">In any case, I believe that the work done by Sub Pro would have to reference the ICANN document that issued on this topic, which specifically states that the Implementation document on IDN variants was published
AFTER public comment was received. That document also states the following conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">“This report sets the stage to initiate the discussion on implementing IDN variant TLDs. Until a reasonably comprehensive, cohesive and technically secure and stable solution has been agreed by the community
for all the TLDs and adopted by the ICANN Board, the existing restriction on the delegation of IDN variant TLDs will continue to apply.”
</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">So are we saying that the WG rejects this assertion by ICANN? If we are saying the Registry Agreements have to reflect a change, we need to make sure all members of the WG understand the issue and the background
on the issue within ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I understand you to be saying that the question around proper evaluation of an IDN TLD variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD should be referred to the IRT. Is it your view that the issue is Implementation?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Rubens Kuhl<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I couldn't join the call due to a conflict, so I will just comment on a few things on IDNs from the notes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Original Text:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and
back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Text suggested by Justine:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">[Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation
by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and
that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Translations are not variants. While not mentioned, the same apply for transliterations. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation
seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled.
Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant
TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- See:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf</span></a>,
which was referenced in developing this section.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alternative suggested language from Justine:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">“"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy
of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Not sure how this is different from the old language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has
not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ICANN Org's position on this is that variant IDNs should go thru a new TLD application in a subsequent procedure. This is strongly argued against by registries, and it's very good to know that ALAC shares this opposition. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But due to this, and the disagreement of Org making this decision with little community consultation, an scooping team was created by the GNSO Council, and this is expected to be address by future policy work. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I suggest policy staff to update the document and the WG with the status on that scoping effort. This would only make the reference more complete, since the outcome wouldn't change: not deciding this item at this WG. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rubens<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>