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

[Rubens Kuhl]

Anne,

I believe this decision to be a policy one, not an implementation one. But my reading of the GNSO Council probable path forward after the IDN Scoping Team concluded is to do a new policy effort on this, not delegate this decision to SubPro.

I believe the similarity analysis part of this strongly correlates to the one used in the Fast Track IDN ccTLD process, which has evolved since its inception, so I think that the implementation of this will be somewhat facilitated by building on the shoulders of that process and prevent introducing security issues in the DNS system. And considering the likely use cases like .quebec/québec and simplified/traditional Chinese writings of strings, I don't expect problems to arise. The main similarity vector is Latin x Cyrillic scripts, which are now well known.

But the policy aspect is that there is an expectation that the agreements require TLD variants to have a cross-variant bundling policy, and this is not the type of decision to be done in a IRT, IMHO.

Rubens


> On 15 Jun 2020, at 14:47, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> Rubens,
> Noted that ICANN takes the position an application and evaluation is required to delegate an IDN TLD that constitutes a variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD.  You point out that registries strongly disagree with this approach and that the Sub Pro WG has not fully discussed this issue.   Based on the last call, I think many of us are still confused as to whether we are saying that the Registry Agreements must be modified to permit “application” for these IDN variants or to permit “activation” of the IDN variant.
> 
> One of the issues in the Implementation document for IDN variants appears to be the question of string similarity.  Apparently the IDN variant may need to go through a string similarity evaluation before being delegated.  In addition, according to the paper linked below, both Objection Processes and “failure modes” have to be evaluated (as to security and stability considerations per SAC 60.)  All of this is discussed in the document you referenced:
> 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>
> 
> In any case, I believe that the work done by Sub Pro would have to reference the ICANN document that issued on this topic, which specifically states that the Implementation document on IDN variants was published AFTER public comment was received.  That document also states the following conclusion:
> 
> “This report sets the stage to initiate the discussion on implementing IDN variant TLDs. Until a reasonably comprehensive, cohesive and technically secure and stable solution has been agreed by the community for all the TLDs and adopted by the ICANN Board, the existing restriction on the delegation of IDN variant TLDs will continue to apply.”
> 
> So are we saying that the WG rejects this assertion by ICANN?  If we are saying the Registry Agreements have to reflect a change, we need to make sure all members of the WG understand the issue and the background on the issue within ICANN.
> 
> I understand you to be saying that the question around proper evaluation of an IDN TLD variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD should be referred to the IRT.  Is it your view that the issue is Implementation?
> Thank you,
> Anne
> 
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:12 PM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200615/45de1636/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/20200615/45de1636/signature-0001.asc>