[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #14 - 2 December 2021

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at dcms.gov.uk
Fri Dec 3 08:04:58 UTC 2021 

Emily cc as above

Good morning; and thank you (as ever) for these timely and
comprehensive notes; I apologies (for health reasons) that I was not on
Call yesterday

Best

Nigel

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 18:47, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes from today’s meeting on Thursday, 2 December 2021
> at 13:30 UTC.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Ariel, Steve, and Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *Action Item #1*: WG to review draft response to charter questions and
> provide input by Monday 13 December 2021.
>
>
> *Action Item #2*: Staff to draft placeholder response to charter question
> a4 based on the analysis conducted. WG will return to close the question
> once it has deliberated on charter question b4.
>
>
>
> *Action Item #3*: Leadership team to see if there are additional
> background materials that can be leveraged to inform discussion on charter
> question A5.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 2 December 2021*
>
>
>
> *Welcome & Chair Updates*
>
>    - Two Board liaisons have been assigned to the EPDP: Akinori and
>    Edmon. Welcome to both.
>    - Staff sent draft language in response to charter questions a1-a3
>    with two weeks to consider the text. If there are substantive comments, the
>    WG will take time on an upcoming call to discuss. Minor edits can be made
>    offline with changes sent to the mailing list. No objections were raised to
>    this approach. Questions can also be submitted and addressed on list.
>
>
>
> *Action Item #1*: WG to review draft response to charter questions and
> provide input by Monday 13 December 2021.
>
>
>
> *Written Early Input
> <https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/Community+Input> from
> SO/AC/SG/Cs*
>
>    - Brief overview of overarching comments from RySG and specific
>    comments from SSAC members and ccNSO ccPDP4 VM subgroup on charter
>    questions a1-a3.
>    - Context regarding RySG comment: The RySG wanted to highlight
>    potential dependencies specifically with respect to the same entity
>    principle and RPMs, Transfers, etc. Regarding comments on contractual
>    provisions, registries want to see consistency in the ways that contracts
>    are revised and amended.
>    - Comment on SSAC members’ response to charter question a1: Looking at
>    this response in conjunction with the SSAC response to charter question a4,
>    there may be a conflict in the text. It may be necessary to clarify what
>    “Root LGR procedure” is intended to mean in SAC060: “The root zone
>    must use one and only one set of rules for the Root LGR procedure.”
>    - Comment on SSAC members’ response to charter question a2: It may be
>    helpful to clarify the recommended “analysis of the delegated variant
>    labels in ccTLDs against the most current version of LGR.” Did they
>    mean “synchronized TLDs” or perhaps “self-identified variants TLD
>    labels by the former gTLD applicants”?
>    - If clarification is needed on SSAC members’ comments, the WG can
>    request discussion with SSAC members during a WG meeting.
>    - Note that the small number of written comments in response to the
>    EPDP request for early input is not necessarily a “red flag.” While still a
>    required step in the EPDP, it is largely duplicative because SO/AC/SG/Cs
>    provide input through their representatives in the EPDP.
>
>
>
> *Continued Deliberations on Topic A: Consistent Definition and Technical
> Utilization of RZ-LGR (Topic A working document: live version
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1I9dSd7alSvz9ZFo0SRxEJdbvTXuYKxfZpxcKVhig96o/edit__;!!PtGJab4!vcnQGtbcRGHPTVPWJVwRt1LeYQVMwQNE0jAcVsDqSXYh8affMxtKqjp1Vj6Km67q7QobafSzRA$> in
> Google Docs, archived versions in MS Word on wiki
> <https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/Working+Documents>)*
>
>
>
> *Charter question A4*
>
>    - Charter was developed on the assumption that the SubPro
>    recommendations would have been adopted by the Board and the IRT would be
>    underway and available for coordination with the EPDP. The EPDP will flag
>    to Council that it is working under the assumption that the SubPro
>    recommendations will be adopted by the Board.
>    - Slide 3: background and charter question – this charter question
>    specifically focuses on existing TLDs that apply for a variant TLD label in
>    a script that is not yet supported by the RZ-LGR. Staff conducted an
>    analysis of whether there will be any such cases and therefore whether
>    there is a problem to solve.
>    - From one perspective, before answering this charter question, it is
>    important to first answer the fundamental question of whether an
>    application by an existing RO for a variant gTLD label should be treated as
>    a new gTLD application. If the answer is yes, the charter question becomes
>    moot.
>    - From another perspective, all existing gTLDs are using scripts that
>    are already in the RZ-LGR or will soon be integrated, so it may not be
>    necessary to respond to this specific charter question. [This perspective
>    is along the same lines as the following slides in the deck]
>    - Slide 4: Scripts of existing gTLDs and RZ-LGR status  - among
>    scripts used in existing gTLDs, they are either integrated or expected to
>    be integrated for RZ-LGR-5 (expected for mid-2022).
>    - Slide 5: Further analysis of existing Latin script gTLDs – Even if
>    the RZ-LGR-5 launch is delayed, it is unlikely that existing Latin script
>    gTLD operators could apply for allocatable variants that do not exist.
>    - Comment: Answering the fundamental question above (charter question
>    b4) will help answer many other questions.
>    - Comment: It is important to look at the history: There is an
>    assumption that variants are essentially the same TLD, but because of the
>    technical implementation we are unable to map the two TLDs together. In
>    terms of applications, it should be one and the same.
>    - Clarification: If we found that there were variants whose script was
>    not yet supported by the RZ-LGR or won’t be through version 5, we would
>    have the question of whether the process recommended by SubPro would apply
>    – that is the question at hand here. The question of whether these become
>    new applicants are not is covered in a different section of the charter.
>    - Comment: the first sentence of the question on slide 3 states “. . .
>    that apply for a variant TLD label. . .” therefore this group needs to
>    decide whether there should be a process for existing TLDs to apply for
>    variant labels outside of the rounds. This is the root of the question.
>    - Clarification: Charter question b4 may be the appropriate place to
>    discuss the fundamental question being referenced.
>    - Upon further discussion, the working group agreed that this question
>    may be moot based on the available data. The working group will not make
>    any conclusions on this charter question and then return to this question
>    to close it after addressing the fundamental question in b4.
>    - There may be different interpretations of this question. Based on
>    one interpretation of this question, the analysis indicates that this point
>    is moot. Staff to add placeholder text responding to the charter question
>    based on this analysis. It will note that the response to this charter
>    question will be revisited after questions later in the charter are
>    addressed.
>
>
> *Action Item #2*: Staff to draft placeholder response to charter question
> a4 based on the analysis conducted. WG will return to close the question
> once it has deliberated on charter question b4.
>
>
>
> *Charter question A5*
>
>    - Slide 7: Introduction to charter question A5
>    - Slide 8: Review of SAC060, TSG Recommendation #14, Appendix C of
>    Staff Paper: Limiting the IDN Variant Domain Names with the Delegation of
>    IDN Variant TLDs
>    - Comment: This is an example of overregulation on registries.
>    Registries have an incentive to create their own rules to make this
>    manageable. It is impossible to make rules for this. This group can’t
>    decide the right number or the factors as a policy matter.
>    - Comment: ICANN is about fact-based policy making. Are there any
>    facts supporting those ideas in the paper? If not, they are not applicable
>    to the process.
>    - Comment: This question is also related to the previous one and the
>    broader question of whether a variant TLD is a normal TLD application with
>    the same costs as a standalone (see charter section D)? If so, it might be
>    resolved by the market. The only restriction we should have is the one
>    imposed by the RZ-LGR.
>    - These questions are related to questions later in the charter.
>    - Question: Why would a registry ask for more labels than it can
>    handle?
>    - Slide 9-11: Additional details of Appendix C of Staff Paper:
>    Limiting the IDN Variant Domain Names with the Delegation of IDN Variant
>    TLDs
>    - Comment: You need to set policy based on actors acting rationally.
>    We should not assume that registries will apply for more labels than they
>    can handle. The RZ-LGR already limits what is applicable. We shouldn’t
>    artificially limit labels for delegation because there is not a fair or
>    rational way to do it.
>    - Comment: The smallest amount possible is not a measurable value. It
>    may not be in the public interest to limit variants. If the SSAC limits
>    labels in some language this may cause a scandal.
>    - Suggestion: The staff paper explores the potential issues. Maybe the
>    working group could look at the probability and consequences of these
>    issues to help analyze the issues further, and if appropriate, identify
>    potential mitigation measures. Some support expressed for this approach.
>    - Comment: If this group is open to it, the WG could invite the
>    integration panel to present to the WG to better understand the IP’s views.
>    - Org comment: The advice originated from SSAC. IP has affirmed that
>    RZ-LGR could create multiple variant labels for some string.
>    - Comment: Support for a phase by phase opening as a conservative
>    approach.
>    - Comment: SSAC should present data on why and how this is a problem.
>    - Org comment: The charter question can be strictly interpreted (a
>    specific number) or more broadly as a question of whether there should be
>    limits.
>    - There are already some script communities proposing ceiling values.
>    - Suggestion: The policy could be that although there is no limit of
>    the number of delegations for registries, registries must take action to
>    ensure that the variant labels are manageable for registrars and
>    registrants.
>    - Summary: members want to see more data that can help inform whether
>    there should be a ceiling value or other limit.
>
>
>
> *Action Item #3*: Leadership team to see if there are additional
> background materials that can be leveraged to inform discussion on charter
> question A5.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20211203/7ecdc048/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list