[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #4 - 2 September 2021
Nigel Hickson
nigel.hickson at dcms.gov.uk
Fri Sep 3 07:11:22 UTC 2021
Emily and colleagues
Good morning and thank you for this, I might have misunderstood (quite
likely) but do we also not use the opportunity (in writing to SO/ACs etc)
to give an update on the progress made in the WG and note appointment of
vice chair etc?
best
Nigel
On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 15:52, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday
> 2 September 2021 at 13:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> As noted on the call, as a standard step in the GNSO EPDP/PDP staff will
> draft a letter to SO/AC/SG/Cs asking for early input on the charter
> questions. The WG will have an opportunity to review the draft and provide
> feedback before this is sent to SO/AC/SG/Cs. Based on conversations to
> date, it appears that the charter questions are fit for purpose to include
> as written with the outreach letter. If there are any concerns with this
> approach, please response on list.
>
>
>
> As a reminder, there are two action items for members and participants:
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM 1: Members to read background documents included in Edmon’s
> welcome email and confirm when they have done so here
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/172720403/IDN%20EPDP%20-%20Proposed%20Approach%20-%20Initial%20Review%20of%20Charter%20Questions%20-%2017%20August%202021.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1629739156000&api=v2>.
> The welcome email is available at:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2021-July/000002.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2021-July/000002.html>*
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM 2: **Members and participants to review the **data and
> metrics part of the charter on page 19 and think about whether other data
> and metrics would be useful for the group to consider in deliberating on
> charter questions. *
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Steve, Marika, and Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IDNs EPDP – Notes and Action Items
>
> Meeting #4 on 2 September 2021
>
>
>
> Action Items:
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM 1: Members to read background documents included in Edmon’s
> welcome email and confirm when they have done so here
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/172720403/IDN%20EPDP%20-%20Proposed%20Approach%20-%20Initial%20Review%20of%20Charter%20Questions%20-%2017%20August%202021.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1629739156000&api=v2>.
> The welcome email is available at:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2021-July/000002.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2021-July/000002.html>*
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM 2: **Members and participants to review the **data and
> metrics part of the charter on page 19 and think about whether other data
> and metrics would be useful for the group to consider in deliberating on
> charter questions. *
>
>
>
> Notes:
>
>
>
> 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates
>
>
>
> 1. Welcome & Chair Updates
>
>
> - EOI reminder – Edmon will begin serving on the ICANN Board at the
> AGM. The EOI process is now open to identify a replacement EPDP Chair:
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/call-for-expressions-of-interest-chair-of-epdp-internationalized-domain-names-1-9-2021-en.
>
> - Edmon will be talking with the ICANN executive team and legal
> counsel about his transition and will keep the group updated on these
> discussions. For now, the goal is to keep the work going without
> interruption.
> - Data & metrics – Everyone is encouraged to review the data and
> metrics part of the charter on page 19 and think about whether other data
> and metrics would be useful for the group to consider in deliberating on
> charter questions. This will be discussed further as the group gets into
> the substantive deliberations on the specific topics.
>
>
>
> 1. Begin initial review of charter questions (continued) – Topics C-G
>
>
> - Question regarding the exercise: Both Topics A & B came back with a
> estimation of a “medium” level or effort. Is this accurate?
> - This exercise is just to get an initial sense of the expected
> workload for the purposes of building an initial draft work plan for the
> group. The work plan will be delivered to the GNSO Council so that the
> Council can monitor the progress of the group, manage the process, and
> troubleshoot if there are issues that need to be resolved. The estimates do
> not need to be exact.
> - Comment: The working group should aim to create a work plan that is
> as accurate as possible with the available information.
> - If the working group needs to change more time than originally
> expected in the work plan, it will deliver a “project change request” to
> the GNSO Council.
> - Topic C: “Same entity” and the second-level: estimated level of
> effort: High = 10+ call hours: (4/20): 20%; Medium = 5 to 10 call hours
> (12/20): 60%; Low = < 5 call hours: (4/20): 20%
> - Comment: There may be cases where two different legal entities have
> rights to variants but suddenly only one survives, and two strings should
> belong to one of the entities. There may be legal implications that have
> not yet been investigated and will require some time from this group.
> - Comment: There are two tracks: One where you are changing the
> definition of an existing IDN implementation in a TLD and the names already
> exist and you make changes to the variant mapping based on the sources you
> choose. That is problematic when you have to decide one or the other based
> on rights. The second is you introduce IDNs to an existing namespace and no
> names are registered in that IDN, so that is determined before all of that
> happens.
> - We might want data points on what existing registrations look like –
> how many would have a conflict if RGZ-LGRs are applied over them.
> - Topic D: Adjustments in registry agreement, registry service,
> registry transition process, and other processes/procedures related to the
> domain name lifecycle: estimated level of effort: High = 10+ call
> hours: (12/19): 63%; Medium = 5 to 10 call hours (4/19): 21%; Low = < 5
> call hours: (3/19): 16%
> - Topics D & E are the administrative processes that are required. For
> D there are 8 questions covering a wide range of issues. Looking at the
> mapping document, a lot of it has been covered to some extent.
> - For this topic, we are not talking about writing the legal language
> in the Registry Agreement. This subject is just about the policies for what
> needs to change in these things.
> - We are only focused on the elements that need to change with respect
> to specific subjects that this EPDP covers.
> - Registry Transition Process is a potential for IDN conflicts if the
> RST phase does not accept the incumbent RSP's implementation of a
> language/script and requires the use of a new LGR (better defined but can
> contain conflicts such as new variant mapping, more or less code points and
> new or different context rules).
> - We are going to change some basic elements and need to consider all
> the dependencies on a procedural level. This may take time.
> - Clarification: The focus on this exercise is to estimate the time
> required for the Working Group to consider topics for policy
> recommendations, not necessarily timelines for each TLD process and
> specific Registry Agreements.
> - Topic E: Adjustments to objection process, string similarity review,
> string contention resolution, reserved strings, and other policies and
> procedures: High = 10+ call hours: (5/17): 29%; Medium = 5 to 10 call
> hours (9/17): 53%; Low = < 5 call hours: (3/17): 18%
> - Many of these topics were covered in SubPro. This group will be
> focused on considering what the SubPro WG has already looked into. We are
> not looking to second guess the results of that process.
> - There will be an IRT for SubPro. This group should coordinate with
> the IRT and review what it comes up with to make sure there are no holes.
> It is primarily an oversight function, and therefore may require less
> effort than some of the other topics.
> - On the other hand, this topic covers all procedures related to new
> gTLDs and will change the process for reviewing applications, so it may
> take a lot of time.
> - Topic F: Adjustments in registration dispute resolution procedures
> and trademark protection mechanisms: High = 10+ call hours: (2/17):
> 12%; Medium = 5 to 10 call hours (10/17): 59%; Low = < 5 call hours:
> (5/17): 29%
> - Comment: This is a complicated issue. It is possible for an
> intellectual property owner to have rights in the registered name but not
> variants or vice versa. Finding out legal implications and whether
> transfers can be ordered is difficult. This might take time even though
> there are only two questions.
> - This group might need to ask for help on this topic from other
> groups to inform final discussion. This is also a topic where additional
> data and metrics may be needed.
> - Putting this task of developing the work plan in perspective, we
> have likely overestimated or underestimated on some of these topics. It
> will likely even out. In a worst-case scenario, we have the option to go to
> the Council and adjust the timeline.
> - If we want to take a conservative approach, we can estimate on the
> high end of the ranges specified in the polls.
> - Topic G: Process to update the IDN Implementation Guidelines: High =
> 10+ call hours: (6/20): 30%; Medium = 5 to 10 call hours (10/20): 50%; Low
> = < 5 call hours: (4/20): 20%
> - Some uncertainty on this topic.
> - More might be brought our way under this topic. IDN Implementation
> Guidelines 4.0 have not been adopted. The Working Group may need to
> consider the path forward.
> - Comment: It is surprising that this topic came back as medium and so
> did Topic F. The representation of different expertise is not balanced on
> the call. The leadership team should take this into account as it builds
> the work plan.
>
>
>
> 1. Early outreach to SO/AC/SG/Cs
>
>
>
> - This is a standard step in the EPDP/PDP. The working group will ask
> SO/AC/SG/Cs for early input on the topics included in the charter.
> - This step is somewhat of a duplication of effort, since the groups
> have an opportunity to provide input through their representatives in the
> EPDP.
> - Based on conversations to date, it appears that the charter
> questions are fit for purpose for early outreach and staff can go ahead and
> draft a cover letter asking for early input on the charter questions (with
> charter questions appended). The WG will have an opportunity to review the
> draft document before it is sent.
> - If anyone has concerns with this approach, they should reply on list.
>
>
>
> 1. Begin deliberations on Topic A: Consistent definition and technical
> utilization of RZ-LGR
>
>
> - This item will be started on the next call.
>
>
>
> 1. AOB
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM 1: Members and participants to read background documents
> included in Edmon’s welcome email and confirm when they have done so here
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/172720403/IDN%20EPDP%20-%20Proposed%20Approach%20-%20Initial%20Review%20of%20Charter%20Questions%20-%2017%20August%202021.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1629739156000&api=v2>.
> The welcome email is available at:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2021-July/000002.html
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM 2: Members and participants to review the data and metrics
> part of the charter on page 19 and think about whether other data and
> metrics would be useful for the group to consider in deliberating on
> charter questions.
>
>
>
> - Next call: 9 September at 13:00 UTC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210903/03c5d8ff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-epdp-idn-team
mailing list