[SubPro-IRT] RZ-LGR Draft Text

Tue Jan 30 13:59:01 UTC 2024

The other issue is that somewhere along the line a decision was made 
that "compliance with the LGR" would be part of the DNS Stability check. 
  By making it part of the DNS Stability check, if you are not compliant 
with the RZ-LGR, then you fail that test and your application does not 
even make it to the next step.  Therefore, by making it part of the DNS 
Stability review, you cannot implement the SubPro Recommendation that it 
can proceed to everything up until contracting.

So the real question is whether "compliance with the RZ-LGR" should be a 
separate test from the DNS Stability review.

------ Original Message ------
>From "Susan Payne" <susan.payne at comlaude.com>
To "Anne ICANN" <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>; "Next Round Policy 
Implementation" <NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org>; 
"subpro-irt at icann.org" <subpro-irt at icann.org>
Date 1/30/2024 8:17:03 AM
Subject [SubPro-IRT] RZ-LGR Draft Text

>Thanks Anne.
>
>I would add that the SubPro Final Report itself gives a clear 
>explanation of the intentions behind Implementation Guidance, which can 
>be found in the Preamble, page 3:
>
>
>
>Implementation Guidance: The Working Group strongly recommends the 
>stated action, with a strong presumption that it will be implemented, 
>but recognizes that there may exist valid reasons in particular 
>circumstances to not take the recommended action exactly as described. 
>However, the party to whom the action is directed must make all efforts 
>to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action (as expressed in 
>the rationale and the recommendation to which the implementation 
>guidance is linked, if applicable) even if done through a different 
>course. In all cases, the full implications must be understood and 
>carefully weighed before choosing a different course. Implementation 
>guidance commonly refers to how a recommendation should be implemented. 
>Implementation guidance typically uses the term “should” indicating 
>that the Working Group expects the action to take place, noting the 
>caveats above.
>
>
>
>This is of course relevant to our upcoming discussion of the section on 
>the Root Zone Label Generation Rules, specifically paragraph 2.1 which 
>proposes that applicants will not be permitted to submit an application 
>for a string if its script has not yet been integrated in the RZ-LGR, 
>and which diverges from SubPro Implementation Guidance 25.3, and its 
>accompanying rationale:
>
>
>
>Implementation Guidance 25.3: If a script is not yet integrated into 
>the RZ-LGR, applicants should be able to apply for a string in that 
>script, and it should be processed up to but not including contracting. 
>Applicants under such circumstances should be warned of the possibility 
>that the applied-for string may never be delegated and they will be 
>responsible for any additional evaluation costs.
>
>
>
>Rationale: …While the Working Group is fully supportive of requiring 
>IDN TLDs to comply with RZ-LGR, it’s cognizant that this may impact 
>potential applicants who want to apply for an application in a script 
>that is not yet integrated into the RZ-LGR. The Working Group believes 
>that applicants should be provided the opportunity to apply for a 
>string in a script that is not yet integrated into the RZ-LGR, and it 
>should be processed up to but not including contracting. It should of 
>course not be delegated until it is compliant. The Working Group 
>believes the burden in this case is on the applicant, who may have to 
>wait for an indeterminate amount of time but is not aware of any other 
>serious concerns.
>
>
>
>It is difficult to see, without further explanation from the staff 
>team, how paragraph 2.1 achieves the purpose behind the recommended 
>action in SubPro 25.3, bearing in mind that the SubPro WG had clearly 
>considered that this would mean an applicant might apply for a string 
>in an unintegrated script without any guarantee of delegation. 
>Hopefully this is what we will discuss shortly.
>
>
>
>Susan Payne
>Head of Legal Policy
>Com Laude
>T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
>Ext 255
>
>
>
>Follow us on Linkedin 
><https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube 
><https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>
>
>
>From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN
>Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 11:00 PM
>To: Next Round Policy Implementation 
><NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org>
>Cc:subpro-irt at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #25 | 23 
>January 2024
>
>
>
>Hi Lars and all IRT Team Members,
>
>
>
>Further to our discussion this past Tuesday, I am pasting below the 
>language from Council's Response to the ICANN Staff Sub Pro ODP team in 
>relation to the effect of Implementation Guidance.  This is from the 
>GNSO Council Response to Question Set #6  (not #4 as I had thought.)  
>Hopefully this Response from Council is helpful generally on the topic 
>of variation from Implementation Guidance.
>
>
>
>"In short, implementation guidance remains a strong recommendation as 
>opposed to a
>requirement. As referenced in the Preamble to the Sub Pro Final Report, 
>ICANN should
>specify any “circumstances where there may be valid reasons not to take 
>such guidance exactly
>as described…” In such circumstances, Council believes that 
>consultation with the IRT, the
>Guidance Process Team, or the Council itself (e.g. via a request for 
>GNSO Input) is in order
>prior to the adoption of alternatives to the specified Implementation 
>Guidance. In all cases, the
>implementation should be accomplished in a manner that achieves the 
>objectives laid out in the
>implementation guidance even if the mechanism of implementation differs 
>slightly from that
>contained in the final report."
>
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
>GNSO Councilor
>
>NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
>anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:15 AM Next Round Policy Implementation 
><NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org> wrote:
>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>>The recordings for Meeting #25  of the SubPro IRT held on Tuesday, 23 
>>January 2024 at 13:00-14:00 UTC are published  on the meeting wiki 
>>page <https://community.icann.org/x/WYPxDg>.
>>
>>
>>
>>These include:
>>
>>Attendance
>>Audio recording
>>Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat)
>>
>>
>>For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives 
>><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page 
>><https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Elisa
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>SubPro-IRT mailing list
>>SubPro-IRT at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of 
>>your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of 
>>Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the 
>>Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, 
>>including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling 
>>delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the 
>intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any 
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received 
>this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the 
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and 
>permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the 
>“Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and 
>it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any 
>attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for 
>statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of 
>the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a 
>limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 
>10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, 
>WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com 
>Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 
>5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, 
>WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and 
>Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little 
>Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company 
>registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered 
>office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL 
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a 
>corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal 
>office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, 
>Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered 
>in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 
>1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP 
>S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at 
>Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see 
>www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240130/a33232bc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4s30fj1p.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240130/a33232bc/4s30fj1p-0001.png>