Dear Council Members: Prior to our last Council meeting, I sent the email below requesting an agenda item to discuss the IDN Operational Track and the coincident consideration of issues by that Track and the now-launched IDN EPDP. I think this situation provides us, as managers of the policy process, the opportunity to gain some efficiencies, avoid duplicative work, and coordinate disparate efforts: by deferring both the adoption of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 and Operational Track work, and letting those issues be resolved during the IDN EPDP. I contacted the Council leadership offline to understand how best to present this material so that the Council can act on it. Pam recommended that I: (1) coordinate the preparation of a letter from the RySG (as a leader of the Operational Track effort) to the Council requesting the deferral, and (2) draft a letter from the Council to the Board relaying the deferral request for your consideration. The attached letters describe the rationale for the recommendation so no need to repeat that here. I look forward to our discussion on this and welcome any questions, amendments, or recommendations during the period leading up to our next meeting. Sincerely, Kurt
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kurt Pritz via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] IDN Operational Track - proposed agenda item Date: May 10, 2021 at 3:20:52 PM PDT To: "philippe.fouquart" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Cc: gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>
Dear Council Members:
I and my RySG Councillor colleagues are writing to propose an agenda item for the May 2021 Council meeting:
Next Steps for IDN Operational Track
The purpose of this discussion is to reconsider the Council recommended approach for proceeding with the Operational Track vis-à-vis the adoption of the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. The current approach calls for the formation or “reconstituting” of an IDN Guidelines Working Group to review the issues related to its implementation (raised by RySG) and assess a path forward.
In the meantime, the Council has spun up the IDN EPDP (i.e., the Policy Track), whose charter is nearing completion. The IDN EPDP will consider some of the same issues that the IDN Implementation Guidelines version 4.0 is addressing.
Similarly, the SubPro PDP also considered some of the same issues, and there is a likelihood that the SubPro IRT and IDN EPDP will approach these issues from a different perspective and develop what might be contradicting results.
In both of these cases (overlap with the Guidelines Operational Track and with the SubPro IRT), some of the issues require policy considerations rather than operational implementation and are better suited for discussion in a policy development process.
These issues are the principle and implementation of the same entity at the second level, and the harmonization of IDN tables (i.e., the creation of a consistent set of variant rules in a given registry TLD).
Therefore, I recommend a briefing during the next meeting so that we can better understand these issues, consider our approach, and make a recommendation to the Board. Dennis Tanaka, chair of the IDN EPDP, could lead that presentation.
As I understand it so far, a preferable approach would be to continue deferring the adoption of the IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 until the issues overlapping with the SubPro PDP and IDN EPDP can be fully deliberated and implemented by the corresponding Implementation Review Teams. Conditions for such a deferral might include:
a. a security / stability check to ensure we are not deferring implementation of IDN Guidelines v4.0 that address stability / security issues, b. a provision that the IDN EPDP could forward to the Council IDN Guideline-specific recommendations as they are created, rather than waiting for the final report, and c. coordination with the SubPro IRT so that the SubPro implementation work will not be delayed in any way.
In addition to the overlapping efforts between the IDN Guidelines, the SubPro PDP, and the IDN EPDP, the ccNSO is also undertaking an IDN Policy re-write for ccTLDs. While GNSO and ccNSO policies are separable in the ICANN world, differences in outcomes can lead to confusing results for domain registrants and users. Therefore, I think we should take advantage of the timing coincidence between the GNSO and ccNSO efforts to normalize results between the two wherever possible.
As described above, there are now several IDN-related efforts for the purpose of enhancing their availability, ease of use and security. I think we should take advantage of the timing of this EPDP to reconcile the various approaches so that there is a coherent approach to IDN policy making and ensuring a good user experience.
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this.
Best regards,
Maxim Alzoba Sebastien Ducos Kurt Pritz _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ 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.