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

[Tan Tanaka, Dennis]

Hi Donna,

Sure. Briefly, Sub Pro’s Recs 24.3 and 24.5 recommended that applicants that appear to be singular and plural of the same word not be automatically place in the same contention set so long the applied-for labels have different intended uses. And, to hold applicants accountable by mandatory public interest commitments to use the TLD in line with the intended use presented in the application. As I read the recommendations it reminded me of question 3.5.4 (i.e., plans to mitigate user confusion).

The Board raises concerns about the appropriateness of such recommendations. An applicant may describe its intentions and policies as to how they plan to operate and market the TLD (and operate it as intended), but they cannot control (and ICANN won’t police) how the registrants will use a domain name (use or not use the variants, in our case), and certainly cannot control how end-user interact and react to the content of a website.

So, again, I question the justification for question 3.5.4…. What are we trying to solve for? Can we measure it? Can it be enforceable?

Dennis


From: Donna austin <DonnaAustin605 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:15 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>, "ariel.liang at icann.org" <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6


Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Dennis

Would it be possible for you to expand on how you think the ICANN Board’s response is relevant to our conversation around 3.5.4 and 3.6 please?

Thanks

Donna

From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Date: Friday, 15 September 2023 at 5:42 am
To: ariel.liang at icann.org <ariel.liang at icann.org>, gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6
I found the ICANN Board’s response to SubPro’s Recommendations 24.3, 24.5 regarding singular/plural applications relevant to this conversation.

The scorecard can be located in this link https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en.pdf<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1cnpQ7X6KKR947RFZOnf7EKO4Hd4zfks6PgPKkvKUyLgSI7DD-V1FtmStYto_zW8NW-hYkvIba-cnMFcHGj6L3Th__L-SBtc5XxPjZWS7Tm-qeGO74U6X9UvQMW0_SvqjXGeszHW5mjA4UWP2_kfV_9F9dogVM8WWsmJLHwuY8sqyQzxmuVaqalXtY2h-GGUIcFsBNmiZrDLX_bcZHCABL4W1J5JtkCW3VUqtCmaUtBZswSTBFpEK3UoDsJG7WRtYqFCHfVtMQQ26e9ga_I5g_HHuLaw3FaU5W8DmTY5CIpTwmUjE6U-zILEpBOXddjzCkVQJP16ueo9aP4LaviNCwg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2Fscorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en.pdf>

Dennis

From: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka at verisign.com>
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:36 AM
To: "ariel.liang at icann.org" <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6

Hi Ariel,

I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation?

Thanks,
Dennis


From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6


Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear all,

The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting.

Thank you!
Ariel


Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label:
3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD;
3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label;
3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and
3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level.

Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account.

Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.

The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20230918/1961c39c/attachment-0001.html>