Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
Dear GNSO Council, Following the discussion during the August meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address. Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by EOB Wednesday, 13 September, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Many thanks Ariel. To Sebastien and Council Members, I am trying to understand the part of the draft letter that states that resolution of this policy issue should not be a dependency for the next round. For example, if the next round proceeds, are we saying we expect .quebec to file a String Confusion objection to any third party application for québec with accent grave over the first e? Or are we saying we think that string similarity review will disqualify any third party application? There appear to be some similarities between these issues and the issue of singulars and plurals which the Sub Pro Final Report treated in detail. That Recommendation is one of the 38 pending issues being handled by the Sub Pro Small Team as to the possible path to a solution which can be adopted by the Board. Would .quebec end up negotiating with a third party applicant for québec in order to have priority when the PDP on this issue is complete? (No priority for .quebec if no exception is created.) Is there potential for gaming here if no policy is developed before the next round? Alternatively, do we believe a policy process which begins after the idn Phase 2 report is delivered will likely be completed in time for the guidelines to appear in the Applicant Guidebook if an exception is created which is similar to the one created for .eu? Apologies as I do not have direct experience with String Similarity Review and its interaction with Objection procedures. Just trying to understand what happens if no policy is adopted before the next round opens. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:52 AM Ariel Liang via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear GNSO Council,
Following the discussion during the August meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address.
Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by *EOB Wednesday, 13 September*, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance.
Thank you,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Development Support Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hello Anne, Thanks for the questions. If staff may provide some follow up, the “dependency” point mainly refers to whether the Next Round should wait until a solution is found to allow the applied-for “.québec” string to successfully pass String Similarity Review. Based on the current established rules, it is very unlikely that the “.québec” string – no matter whether it is applied-for by PointQuebec or a third-party – would be eligible to proceed. We don’t know this for 100% certainty until the string is actually being applied for, but the presumption is that the panel will likely find it confusingly similar to the already delegated .quebec gTLD. If they were variants according to RZ-LGR, “.québec” would be able to pass String Similarity Review, but the reality is they are not. The key challenge is to develop an exception to allow confusingly similar strings to successfully pass evaluation as if they were applied-for as “variants”. The general agreement we heard from the Council discussion in August is that there seems to be no quick or easy solution to tackle this challenge, and it will require further research / study to understand the scope of the problem and the potential implications of creating an exception procedure. Hope it helps clarify a bit more. Welcome Seb and others to chime in as well. Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:02 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Many thanks Ariel. To Sebastien and Council Members, I am trying to understand the part of the draft letter that states that resolution of this policy issue should not be a dependency for the next round. For example, if the next round proceeds, are we saying we expect .quebec to file a String Confusion objection to any third party application for québec with accent grave over the first e? Or are we saying we think that string similarity review will disqualify any third party application? There appear to be some similarities between these issues and the issue of singulars and plurals which the Sub Pro Final Report treated in detail. That Recommendation is one of the 38 pending issues being handled by the Sub Pro Small Team as to the possible path to a solution which can be adopted by the Board. Would .quebec end up negotiating with a third party applicant for québec in order to have priority when the PDP on this issue is complete? (No priority for .quebec if no exception is created.) Is there potential for gaming here if no policy is developed before the next round? Alternatively, do we believe a policy process which begins after the idn Phase 2 report is delivered will likely be completed in time for the guidelines to appear in the Applicant Guidebook if an exception is created which is similar to the one created for .eu? Apologies as I do not have direct experience with String Similarity Review and its interaction with Objection procedures. Just trying to understand what happens if no policy is adopted before the next round opens. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:52 AM Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear GNSO Council, Following the discussion during the August meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address. Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by EOB Wednesday, 13 September, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
Thanks Ariel. I wanted to know whether the ability of Point Quebec to object is preserved until after the String Similarity Review. (I can't remember how this works.) If not, it seems that a lot of confusion could be created by having the next round go forward and forcing Point Quebec to file objections and start negotiating with any third party applicant etc. Do you know the answer to that question? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:48 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Anne,
Thanks for the questions.
If staff may provide some follow up, the “dependency” point mainly refers to whether the Next Round should wait until a solution is found to allow the applied-for “.québec” string to successfully pass String Similarity Review.
Based on the current established rules, it is very unlikely that the “.québec” string – no matter whether it is applied-for by PointQuebec or a third-party – would be eligible to proceed. We don’t know this for 100% certainty until the string is actually being applied for, but the presumption is that the panel will likely find it confusingly similar to the already delegated .quebec gTLD. If they were variants according to RZ-LGR, “.québec” would be able to pass String Similarity Review, but the reality is they are not. The key challenge is to develop an exception to allow confusingly similar strings to successfully pass evaluation as if they were applied-for as “variants”.
The general agreement we heard from the Council discussion in August is that there seems to be no quick or easy solution to tackle this challenge, and it will require further research / study to understand the scope of the problem and the potential implications of creating an exception procedure.
Hope it helps clarify a bit more. Welcome Seb and others to chime in as well.
Best,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:02 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
Many thanks Ariel. To Sebastien and Council Members,
I am trying to understand the part of the draft letter that states that resolution of this policy issue should not be a dependency for the next round. For example, if the next round proceeds, are we saying we expect .quebec to file a String Confusion objection to any third party application for québec with accent grave over the first e? Or are we saying we think that string similarity review will disqualify any third party application?
There appear to be some similarities between these issues and the issue of singulars and plurals which the Sub Pro Final Report treated in detail. That Recommendation is one of the 38 pending issues being handled by the Sub Pro Small Team as to the possible path to a solution which can be adopted by the Board.
Would .quebec end up negotiating with a third party applicant for québec in order to have priority when the PDP on this issue is complete? (No priority for .quebec if no exception is created.) Is there potential for gaming here if no policy is developed before the next round?
Alternatively, do we believe a policy process which begins after the idn Phase 2 report is delivered will likely be completed in time for the guidelines to appear in the Applicant Guidebook if an exception is created which is similar to the one created for .eu?
Apologies as I do not have direct experience with String Similarity Review and its interaction with Objection procedures. Just trying to understand what happens if no policy is adopted before the next round opens.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:52 AM Ariel Liang via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear GNSO Council,
Following the discussion during the August meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address.
Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by *EOB Wednesday, 13 September*, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance.
Thank you,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Development Support Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hello Anne, I consulted your question with Steve Chan and below is the joint view from us both. Based on the 2012 round, the formal objection period lasted for an extended period of time and concluded two weeks after the Initial Evaluation period completed, which means that the right to object is indeed preserved until after String Similarity completes. That said, PointQuebec is the party interested in applying for “.québec” and what is preventing them from doing so is the lack of certainty that they will successfully make it through the string similarity evaluation. A third party considering applying for “.québec” would face the same prospects, reducing the likelihood of them applying in the first place. However, if that third party were to apply AND make it through string similarity, PointQuebec as an existing registry operator, would retain the ability to file an objection. Best Regards, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:16 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Thanks Ariel. I wanted to know whether the ability of Point Quebec to object is preserved until after the String Similarity Review. (I can't remember how this works.) If not, it seems that a lot of confusion could be created by having the next round go forward and forcing Point Quebec to file objections and start negotiating with any third party applicant etc. Do you know the answer to that question? Thank you, Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:48 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Anne, Thanks for the questions. If staff may provide some follow up, the “dependency” point mainly refers to whether the Next Round should wait until a solution is found to allow the applied-for “.québec” string to successfully pass String Similarity Review. Based on the current established rules, it is very unlikely that the “.québec” string – no matter whether it is applied-for by PointQuebec or a third-party – would be eligible to proceed. We don’t know this for 100% certainty until the string is actually being applied for, but the presumption is that the panel will likely find it confusingly similar to the already delegated .quebec gTLD. If they were variants according to RZ-LGR, “.québec” would be able to pass String Similarity Review, but the reality is they are not. The key challenge is to develop an exception to allow confusingly similar strings to successfully pass evaluation as if they were applied-for as “variants”. The general agreement we heard from the Council discussion in August is that there seems to be no quick or easy solution to tackle this challenge, and it will require further research / study to understand the scope of the problem and the potential implications of creating an exception procedure. Hope it helps clarify a bit more. Welcome Seb and others to chime in as well. Best, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:02 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Many thanks Ariel. To Sebastien and Council Members, I am trying to understand the part of the draft letter that states that resolution of this policy issue should not be a dependency for the next round. For example, if the next round proceeds, are we saying we expect .quebec to file a String Confusion objection to any third party application for québec with accent grave over the first e? Or are we saying we think that string similarity review will disqualify any third party application? There appear to be some similarities between these issues and the issue of singulars and plurals which the Sub Pro Final Report treated in detail. That Recommendation is one of the 38 pending issues being handled by the Sub Pro Small Team as to the possible path to a solution which can be adopted by the Board. Would .quebec end up negotiating with a third party applicant for québec in order to have priority when the PDP on this issue is complete? (No priority for .quebec if no exception is created.) Is there potential for gaming here if no policy is developed before the next round? Alternatively, do we believe a policy process which begins after the idn Phase 2 report is delivered will likely be completed in time for the guidelines to appear in the Applicant Guidebook if an exception is created which is similar to the one created for .eu? Apologies as I do not have direct experience with String Similarity Review and its interaction with Objection procedures. Just trying to understand what happens if no policy is adopted before the next round opens. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:52 AM Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear GNSO Council, Following the discussion during the August meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address. Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by EOB Wednesday, 13 September, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
Dear All, Given that no substantive edits or suggestions were received by EOB yesterday, staff will send the attached guidance statement to the EPDP-IDNs Team on behalf of the GNSO Council. Thank you all for the review. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:50 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Dear GNSO Council, Following the discussion during the August meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address. Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by EOB Wednesday, 13 September, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Ariel - just a note that Leadership asked the Liaisons to Sub Pro to raise the issue in today's Sub Pro IRT discussion on draft String Similarity review language. It appears that the existing draft AGB language may not be adequate to clarify a requirement for the inclusion of spellings with accents over certain letters as mandatory to the string similarity review. Some believe this is a policy issue and not an implementation issue. I gather this will be discussed next week at Council. I don't know if this affects what Leadership wants to say in the letter or not. It may if Council wants to take the view that this can be addressed in the IRT and does not require a policy process. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM Ariel Liang via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Given that no substantive edits or suggestions were received by EOB yesterday, staff will send the attached guidance statement to the EPDP-IDNs Team on behalf of the GNSO Council.
Thank you all for the review.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:50 PM *To: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
Dear GNSO Council,
Following the discussion during the August meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address.
Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by *EOB Wednesday, 13 September*, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance.
Thank you,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Development Support Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hello Anne, Thanks for the heads up. The Guidance Statement focuses on whether the “.québec" issue is within the scope for the EPDP-IDNs Team to address. The Council agreement is that it is beyond scope, as the EPDP Team is tasked to develop policy recommendations on *variant* management mechanism (“.québec" is not a variant of .quebec). The request for Issue Report and the consideration for a dedicated PDP effort may be the appropriate path to develop an exception to string similarity review to tackle this specific challenge. Staff’s understanding is that the Guidance Statement is unaffected. Best Regards, Ariel From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:13 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Ariel - just a note that Leadership asked the Liaisons to Sub Pro to raise the issue in today's Sub Pro IRT discussion on draft String Similarity review language. It appears that the existing draft AGB language may not be adequate to clarify a requirement for the inclusion of spellings with accents over certain letters as mandatory to the string similarity review. Some believe this is a policy issue and not an implementation issue. I gather this will be discussed next week at Council. I don't know if this affects what Leadership wants to say in the letter or not. It may if Council wants to take the view that this can be addressed in the IRT and does not require a policy process. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM Ariel Liang via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Given that no substantive edits or suggestions were received by EOB yesterday, staff will send the attached guidance statement to the EPDP-IDNs Team on behalf of the GNSO Council. Thank you all for the review. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:50 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec" Dear GNSO Council, Following the discussion during the August meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address. Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by EOB Wednesday, 13 September, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
Assume you have checked with Sebastien on this since he is the one who gave instructions to Susan and me this am to try to address an aspect of this in the Sub Pro IRT this morning. Again, it's not clear that .quebec with accent grave would be included in String Similarity Review based on the current language. To my mind, it's also not clear that a policy process would be required to get the principle involving accents applied to String Similarity Review. I'm not sure Council should say anything more in the letter than the fact that the issue is not within scope for the IDN WG. Of course I defer to Sebastien as to whether his instructions this morning have any effect on the content of the letter. Anne On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:32 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Anne,
Thanks for the heads up.
The Guidance Statement focuses on whether the “.québec" issue is within the scope for the EPDP-IDNs Team to address. The Council agreement is that it is beyond scope, as the EPDP Team is tasked to develop policy recommendations on *variant* management mechanism (“.québec" is not a variant of .quebec). The request for Issue Report and the consideration for a dedicated PDP effort may be the appropriate path to develop an exception to string similarity review to tackle this specific challenge.
Staff’s understanding is that the Guidance Statement is unaffected.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:13 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
Ariel - just a note that Leadership asked the Liaisons to Sub Pro to raise the issue in today's Sub Pro IRT discussion on draft String Similarity review language. It appears that the existing draft AGB language may not be adequate to clarify a requirement for the inclusion of spellings with accents over certain letters as mandatory to the string similarity review. Some believe this is a policy issue and not an implementation issue. I gather this will be discussed next week at Council.
I don't know if this affects what Leadership wants to say in the letter or not. It may if Council wants to take the view that this can be addressed in the IRT and does not require a policy process.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 6:55 AM Ariel Liang via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Given that no substantive edits or suggestions were received by EOB yesterday, staff will send the attached guidance statement to the EPDP-IDNs Team on behalf of the GNSO Council.
Thank you all for the review.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:50 PM *To: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
Dear GNSO Council,
Following the discussion during the August meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within its scope to address.
Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or concern is raised by any Councilor by *EOB Wednesday, 13 September*, it will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance.
Thank you,
Ariel
Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Development Support Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (2)
-
Anne ICANN -
Ariel Liang