Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Mailbox Transport; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:19:47 -0800 Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.18) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:19:46 -0800 Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (192.0.46.77) by PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:19:46 -0800 Authentication-Results: ppa1.lax.icann.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=edmon@registry.asia; dkim=pass header.d=registry.asia header.s=default; dmarc=none Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [192.0.33.72]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id xBANJhMY008573 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:19:44 GMT Received: from jerry.dot.asia (jerry.dot.asia [52.72.248.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108AA1E02A9; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vaioS11 ([103.88.112.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by jerry.dot.asia (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xBANJGFK020851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Dec 2019 07:19:18 +0800 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 jerry.dot.asia xBANJGFK020851 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=registry.asia; s=default; t=1576019961; bh=SC+dPcVl12h7S48bqUiRd+gS85rj2g5sftopdn8eAtg=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From; b=amVN9VRPaLgIKk0fUGv+U0rjWTzyAxTkRzCN5LazZyDUYWR8BmQC5xIoTSzOUTevm rC2zWl4lZXNLru2z4QG3EM/KXHuHy2KcHJT6pYNvR86eVdH0j3meVGoo5c1Hna2Sm9 OEsCxnhrsTDVrOPTgpQaLEYIVf1XJBx3PIgblnws= From: "Edmon" To: "'Steve Chan'" , References: <5B78AF6D-B5D4-4AD9-A279-6E9EF1C40331@icann.org> In-Reply-To: <5B78AF6D-B5D4-4AD9-A279-6E9EF1C40331@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 07:19:16 +0800 Message-ID: <087201d5afb0$409a3310$c1ce9930$@registry.asia> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJ+YizkJRiC/d6E98caqAfcSSN6haZil3iQ Content-Language: en X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 191210-0, 11/12/2019), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE,HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on jerry.dot.asia X-CLX-Shades: MLX X-CLX-Response: 1TFkXGxMdEQpMehcaEQpZRBdrRG5gTGh8f0ZCGBEKWFgXYXxIQXtrYB5+fRM RCnhOF2NIRW4BaWRjbXNLEQp5QxdrUhtGH099H2FDexEKQ0gXBxsaEQpDWRcHHhMRCkNJFxoEGh oaEQpZTRdnZnIRCllJFxpxGhAadwYbHR1xGxsdEBp3BhgaBhoRClleF2xseREKSUYXQ0lLRER1W lhFTl9JXkNFRAdcRxEKQ04XeW0fQh9HRQdEGxlBUEhHaBJ+RE9bR3xhTHx4HXVaYkURClhcFx8E GgQbExoHThIbGxhIHkkFGxoEGxoaBB4SBBsTEBseGh8aEQpeWRd8YElTWREKTVwXHhkYEQpMWhd pTU1rEQpMRhdva2tsa2kRCkJPF2F+f2duXhkFH2ZCEQpDWhcfGAQdGAQYHhIEGRsRCkJeFxsRCk ReFxgRCkJcFxsRCl5OFxsRCkJLF2NIRW4BaWRjbXNLEQpCSRdjSEVuAWlkY21zSxEKQkUXa2V8U 30cU2BlRBwRCkJOF2NIRW4BaWRjbXNLEQpCTBdhfEhBe2tgHn59ExEKQmwXbEhkAUYfXU1Cc1sR CkJAF29EGHwBeAVeRW5hEQpCWBdtRRocZH9Tb2lFQhEKWlgXHxEKcGcXbWtEHU1mGmxLTlAQGhE KcGgXZWZFbGEBSBl9QhkQGhEKcH8Xb0RhUBITfxscEn4QExIRCnBfF2NNQxgTU1tFb15dEBoRCn B9F28dWHxFfn1sfQFQEBoRCnBfF2tyf0gfbmkbZWBkEBoRCnB9F2YBbWh/UxlJWR18EBoRCnBnF 2BnemZ7ARhSHFhkEBoRCnB/F2JFWh9TfFNzW1B5EBsYHBEKcF8XbVwaZGhfcERbT0AQGhEKcH0X Y1tYU2BdZEVeGmkQGhEKcH0Xbx1YfEV+fWx9AVAQGhEKcF8XZG9TTE1QT1xtYlgQHhIRCnB9F2l 6eWdeQ3xpTHx4EBoRCnBfF257cxNPTXgdWU1QEBoRCnB9F2BPH2geYxhnb2dQEBoRCnB/F2dABU tzZFoSHU9oEBsYGhEKcF8XZUZrW0hTZV94UGYQGxgYEQpwfRdofxhMbnldGU9EfhAaEQpwfxdvG 0FoemNmHkhmExAbGh4RCnBfF2ZCQkwYQ1NBeUhHEBoRCnB9F2BaZF17QW54XHkZEBoRCnBsF2JT AWNLQEB7TmZdEBoRCnBDF2ZgXX1tTmx6SR1QEBoRCm1+FxoRClhNF0sRIA== X-Proofpoint-SPF-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:220.241.1.120/29 ip4:115.160.148.168/29 ip4:58.248.235.25 ip4:50.87.75.179 ip4:52.72.246.207 ip4:52.72.248.31 ptr:afilias.info include:servers.mcsv.net a mx -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-12-10_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-DMARC-Result: none X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=197 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1912100189 Return-Path: edmon@registry.asia X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: 8d769756-458e-4956-4e5b-08d77dc7727a X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3658918413_2086720700" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3658918413_2086720700 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Steve. =20 It seems clear at this point we should recommend for the matters to proceed= in a separate PDP and not added to existing PDPs. =20 One of the important decisions the group needs to make though, is whether t= o recommend to the GNSO Council: A) A regular PDP, for which an Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Re= port is not required =20 Given the volume of background information already produced for the topic, = as well as the rough draft which staff has drawn up, which includes the issu= es (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeG= FBnQVc0/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.google.com] 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpf= JPk-LAQ/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.google.com] =20 It appears that an EPDP is the appropriate approach because there is ample = background information on the subject and there does not seem to be any clea= r gaps requiring an Issues report. =20 I understand that Maxim has raised concerns about EPDP, but that seems to s= tem from the emotional aftermath of how the EPDP in response to GDPR was cre= ated more than the actual requirement (i.e. of the Issues Report). If ther= e are any other concerns or objections to proceeding with EPDP please raise = them. =20 If we do move forward to recommend an EPDP approach, the chartering team ca= n determine the structure and membership of the EPDP working group and compl= ete the IDN Variant Issues Scoping (1. Above) which would form essentially = an issues report for the working group consideration. =20 Please take a look and we hope to come to conclusion on the matter so we ca= n make the recommendation to the council before its meeting in January. =20 Edmon =20 =20 =20 From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@ica= nn.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan via gnso-council-IDN-scoping Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 4:02 AM To: gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team = Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC =20 Dear Team, =20 With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items an= d notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December a= t 3:00 UTC. =20 Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please not= e that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the = recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://c= ommunity.icann.org/x/z5czBw =20 =20 Best, Steve =20 =3D=3D Action Item - Staff to add SAC060 and SAC052 to the list of documents - Edmon to determine if he feels like he can make an assessment as to which= Option the scoping team supports to recommend to the GNSO Council. If he is= able, he will provide his assessment to the email list for input. =20 =20 NOTES Welcome and roll call =20 - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP =E2=80=93 SubPro leadership does not= believe that the IDN work must take place in SubPro. If an IDN variants PDP= is launched, it can further the related work done in SubPro and build upon= it. - Edmon has review the SubPro draft recs and they indeed seem like they can= be built upon rather than needing to be overturned. - SubPro may want to consider the technical utilization paper for the RZ-LG= R, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it=E2=80=99s= a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies can be replaced by policy development taking place at a lat= er date, so a new PDP on IDN variants could in theory develop recommendation= s that go against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.=20 =20 Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document= /d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQVc0/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.googl= e.com] =20 - Purpose of this document is to explore whether or not there is sufficient= background documentation and analysis to serve as a proxy for an Issue Repo= rt, which could make an EPDP make some sense - There is also the existing work on IDN variants taking place in SubPro - Document is structured similarly to the substantive part of an Issue Repo= rt and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, whic= h in this case come from the Board resolution (e.g., RZ-LGR must be the only= source and that policies should be developed to manage IDN variant TLDs fo= r current and future gTLDs). - Also notes that coordination with ccNSO is needed and GNSO concerns about= the process by which the IDN Guidelines are updated from version to version= . - Second section identifies the list of relevant documentation. There is al= so, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. =20 ACTION =E2=80=93 Add SAC060 and SAC052 to the list of documents =20 - The list is not intended to limit what a PDP may consider, in the event s= omething relevant arises later. - Third part of the document is about the issues and questions a PDP should= consider and address. Firstly, broken down into the two challenges. Lists o= ut the recommendations from the staff report. - Also lists out questions from the staff report where there may be policy = implications. This list is captured verbatim from the staff paper. - The Council did not specifically request a charter from the IDN Scoping t= eam - There was not a specific time frame dictated by the Council, but there is= an expectation that the scoping team will provide its recommendations prior= to the end of the year. Concerns expressed from Maxim about the time const= raint.=20 =20 After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.g= oogle.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qxJlc/edit?usp=3Ds= haring =20 - In light of the previous discussion about what could be in an issue repor= t, based on existing materials and analysis, what option makes the most sens= e? - Option A is to leverage existing PDPs (i.e., SubPro and RPMs), Option B i= s to separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Op= tion D is an expert working group. - Maxim indicates that there is not support from the entire group to for an= EPDP, suggestion that he should indicate why he oppose, what he prefers, an= d why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of= ccNSO. =20 ACTION =E2=80=93 Edmon to determine if he feels like he can make an assessment as= to which Option the scoping team supports to recommend to the GNSO Council.= If he is able, he will provide his assessment to the email list for input. =20 - Maxim notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic a= nd that further analysis is needed. =20 Possible next steps =20 - None, discussed above =20 AOB =20 - None =20 Steven Chan=E2=80=A8 Policy Director, GNSO Support =20 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)=20 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536=E2=80=A8 =20 Email: steve.chan@icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 =20 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are loc= ated on the GNSO Master Calendar=20 --B_3658918413_2086720700 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Steve.

 

It seems clear at this point we sh= ould recommend for the matters to proceed in a separate PDP and not added to= existing PDPs.

 

One of the important decisions the= group needs to make though, is whether to recommend to the GNSO Council:

A) A regular PDP, for which an Iss= ues Report needs to be developed

B) An EPDP, for which the only dif= ference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required

 

Given the volume of background inf= ormation already produced for the topic, as well as the rough draft which st= aff has drawn up, which includes the issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2):

1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBn= QVc0/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.google.com]

2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk= -LAQ/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.google.com]

 

It appears that an EPDP is the app= ropriate approach because there is ample background information on the subje= ct and there does not seem to be any clear gaps requiring an Issues report.

 

I understand that Maxim has raised= concerns about EPDP, but that seems to stem from the emotional aftermath of= how the EPDP in response to GDPR was created more than the actual requirement (i.e. of the Issues Report).  If the= re are any other concerns or objections to proceeding with EPDP please raise= them.

 

If we do move forward to recommend= an EPDP approach, the chartering team can determine the structure and membe= rship of the EPDP working group and complete the IDN Variant Issues Scoping (1. Above) which would form essentially an = issues report for the working group consideration.

 

Please take a look and we hope to = come to conclusion on the matter so we can make the recommendation to the co= uncil before its meeting in January.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-id= n-scoping-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan via gnso-council-IDN-scoping
Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 4:02 AM
To: gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Sc= oping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC

 

Dear Team,<= o:p>

 =

With apolog= ies for the late delivery, please find below the action = items and notes = ;captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 Decemb= er at 3:00 UTC.

 

Staff has posted to th= e wiki space the action items and no= tes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute f= or the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw

 =

 

Best,

Steve<= /o:p>

 

=3D=3D

Action Item

- Staff to add SAC060 and SAC= 052 to the list of documents

- Edmon = to determine if he feels like he can make an assessment as to which Option t= he scoping team supports to recommend to the GNSO Council. If he is able, he= will provide his assessment to the email list for input.

 =

 =

NOTES

  1. Welcome and roll call

 =

- Edmon may= need to leave meeting early

- Update on= coordination with the SubPro PDP =E2=80=93 SubPro leadership does not believe tha= t the IDN work must take place in SubPro. If an IDN variants PDP is launched= , it can further the related work done in SubPro and build upon it.

- Edmon has= review the SubPro draft recs and they indeed seem like they can be built up= on rather than needing to be overturned.

- SubPro ma= y want to consider the technical utilization paper for the RZ-LGR, currently= under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it=E2=80=99s a fluid sit= uation of they indeed review the document now.

- GNSO poli= cies can be replaced by policy development taking place at a later date, so = a new PDP on IDN variants could in theory develop recommendations that go ag= ainst the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.

 =

  1. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBn= QVc0/edit?usp=3Dsharing [docs.google.com]

 =

- Purpose o= f this document is to explore whether or not there is sufficient background = documentation and analysis to serve as a proxy for an Issue Report, which co= uld make an EPDP make some sense

- There is = also the existing work on IDN variants taking place in SubPro

- Document = is structured similarly to the substantive part of an Issue Report and make = sure that all of the required elements are present.

- First par= t is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which in this ca= se come from the Board resolution (e.g., RZ-LGR must be the only source and = that policies should be developed to manage IDN variant TLDs for current and future gTLDs).

- Also note= s that coordination with ccNSO is needed and GNSO concerns about the process= by which the IDN Guidelines are updated from version to version.=

- Second se= ction identifies the list of relevant documentation. There is also, by refer= ence, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.<= /span>

 =

ACTION =E2= =80=93 Add SAC060 and SAC052 to the list of documents

 =

- The list = is not intended to limit what a PDP may consider, in the event something rel= evant arises later.

- Third par= t of the document is about the issues and questions a PDP should consider an= d address. Firstly, broken down into the two challenges. Lists out the recom= mendations from the staff report.

- Also list= s out questions from the staff report where there may be policy implications= . This list is captured verbatim from the staff paper.

- The Counc= il did not specifically request a charter from the IDN Scoping team

- There was= not a specific time frame dictated by the Council, but there is an expectat= ion that the scoping team will provide its recommendations prior to the end = of the year. Concerns expressed from Maxim about the time constraint.

 =

  1. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options= paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XY= Qvwe5qxJlc/edit?usp=3Dsharing

 =

- In light = of the previous discussion about what could be in an issue report, based on = existing materials and analysis, what option makes the most sense?

- Option A = is to leverage existing PDPs (i.e., SubPro and RPMs), Option B is to separat= e new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option D is an= expert working group.

- Maxim ind= icates that there is not support from the entire group to for an EPDP, sugge= stion that he should indicate why he oppose, what he prefers, and why. Also = indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.

 =

ACTION =E2= =80=93 Edmon to determine if he feels like he can make an assessment as to which= Option the scoping team supports to recommend to the GNSO Council. If he is= able, he will provide his assessment to the email list for input.

 =

- Maxim not= es that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that furt= her analysis is needed.

 =

  1. Possible next steps

 =

- None, dis= cussed above

 =

  1. AOB

 =

- None=

 

Steven Chan=E2=80=A8

Policy Director, GNSO S= upport

 =

Internet Co= rporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive,= Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2= 536=E2=80=A8

    = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;           

Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.= 4410

 

Find out mo= re about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNS= O on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Transcripts= and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the&= nbsp;GNSO Master Calendar 

--B_3658918413_2086720700--