[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] "Consistent user experience" and "usability goals" as part of the Rationale of Rec 2.6

[Satish Babu]

Dear all,

The ALAC Team respectfully submits that both the phrases "consistent user
experience" and "usability goal" are inspired by the Charter of the EPDP on
IDNs. The phrase "security and usability goals" appears four times in the
Charter, and the phrase "good user experience" once.

In particular, the Preamble states that:

This EPDP is expected to provide the GNSO Council with policy
recommendations on:
i)  the definition of all gTLDs and the management of variant labels to
facilitate the delegation of variant gTLDs in the root zone while achieving
the *security and usability goal of variant labels in a stable manner*; and
ii) how the IDN Implementation Guidelines, which Contracted Parties are
required to comply with, should be updated in the future.


>From this, it appears to us that security, stability, and usability are all
important goals. Since Recommendation 2.6 states that the applicant will be
“required to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and
the applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and
operational perspective”, we believe that the Rationale should refer to
these goals.

Accordingly, we propose the following formulation for Implementation
Guidance (new) and Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 where our proposed
edits are marked in blue text, while the pink text indicates the current
edits that are being considered.  The proposed Implementation Guidance xx
is borne out of Dennis' comment for clarity with respect to the last 2
sentences in the Rationale. The Recommendation itself is unchanged and is
provided for completeness.

*Recommendation 2.6:* The applicant will be required, as part of the
application process, to explain the reason(s) why it needs to activate the
applied-for variant label(s). In addition, the applicant will be required
to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and the
applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and operational
perspective.



Implementation Guidance xx: Submission by applicants of supporting
information must allow for a consistent and meaningful evaluation by
evaluators with the requisite expertise.

Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 and Implementation Guidance xx: As IDN
gTLDs and variant labels that are considered a set are yet to be delegated
and operated at the root zone level, there is uncertainty about how the set
will be managed and operated by the registry operator from a technical and
user perspective. Therefore, it will be important that applicants are able
to explain their need for a set of IDN variant label(s) as well as
demonstrate their technical capability to operate and manage the set.
ThereforeConsequently, the applicant will be required to respond to
additional application questions to address why they seek to activate those
variant label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and
expected usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage
the set operationally to achieve the security, stability, and usability
goals for their set in a stable manner. This would contribute to ensuring a
good user experience.  IDN variants as well as how it plans to manage the
set operationally, with a view to ensuring a secure, stable, and consistent
user experience. The applicant’s response to these questions is expected to
be a critical component in the evaluation process. Evaluators with
requisite expertise are expected to assess these responses.

In other words, we are proposing that the Recommendation, Implementation
Guidance, and Rationale read as follows,

*Recommendation 2.6:* The applicant will be required, as part of the
application process, to explain the reason(s) why it needs to activate the
applied-for variant label(s). In addition, the applicant will be required
to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and the
applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and operational
perspective.



Implementation Guidance xx: Submission by applicants of supporting
information must allow for a consistent and meaningful evaluation by
evaluators with the requisite expertise.

Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 and Implementation Guidance xx: As IDN
gTLDs and variant labels that are considered a set are yet to be delegated
and operated at the root zone level, there is uncertainty about how the set
will be managed and operated by the registry operator from a technical and
user perspective. Therefore, it will be important that applicants are able
to explain their need for a set of IDN variant label(s) as well as
demonstrate their technical capability to operate and manage the set.
Consequently, the applicant will be required to respond to additional
application questions to address why they seek to activate those variant
label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and expected
usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage the set
operationally to achieve the security and usability goals for their set in
a stable manner. This would contribute to ensuring a good user experience. The
applicant’s response to these questions is expected to be a critical
component in the evaluation process. Evaluators with requisite expertise
are expected to assess these responses.

With kind regards




satish
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20221012/8c3bcafa/attachment.html>