[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6

[Michael Bauland]

Hi all,

in general I think the suggested wording is ok. The bullet points in 3.5 
will serve the purpose that applicants don't just try to activate all 
allocatable variants, but will have to think about for each variant, why 
they need it and if it's really necessary.

However, I also copy Dennis' reservation, especially regarding 3.5.4. It 
will be very difficult to put an objective mark (0/1) to the answers. 
How should the evaluators decide whether the mentioned mitigation suffices.

For example, if the applicant says that they will ensure that the 
cross-TLD domain variants will be handled "correctly" (i.e., only the 
same entity will be able to apply for variants), is that already sufficient?

If yes, then we could also leave out 3.5.4, because the above will 
already be required by our developed policy and every registry MUST 
adhere to it.

If it's not sufficient, what else is needed? Does the registry need to 
look at the content of each and every domain? That certainly is not viable.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                    Technologiepark
                                  Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                  44227 Dortmund
                                  Germany

      Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                  Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
      Dr. Michael Bauland         SIP:    Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
      Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de

                                  Register Court:
                                  Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

                                  Chief Executive Officers:
                                  Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp