[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC

[Rubens Kuhl]

I couldn't join the call due to a conflict, so I will just comment on a few things on IDNs from the notes:

> 
> 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names
> 
> Original Text:
> Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.
> 
> Text suggested by Justine:
> [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.]
> 
> AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?"

Translations are not variants. While not mentioned, the same apply for transliterations.

> 
> JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants."
> 
> -- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD.
> -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue.
> -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf>, which was referenced in developing this section.
> 
> Alternative suggested language from Justine:
> “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements."
> 
> -- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant.
> -- Not sure how this is different from the old language.
> -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request.
> -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant.
> 
> ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant.  Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD.  Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”


ICANN Org's position on this is that variant IDNs should go thru a new TLD application in a subsequent procedure. This is strongly argued against by registries, and it's very good to know that ALAC shares this opposition.
But due to this, and the disagreement of Org making this decision with little community consultation, an scooping team was created by the GNSO Council, and this is expected to be address by future policy work.
So I suggest policy staff to update the document and the WG with the status on that scoping effort. This would only make the reference more complete, since the outcome wouldn't change: not deciding this item at this WG.



Rubens




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200611/1b906c08/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200611/1b906c08/signature-0001.asc>