Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. Possible next steps - None, discussed above AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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 located on the GNSO Master Calendar
Thanks Steve. It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required 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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... 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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January. Edmon From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. 2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. 3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. 4. Possible next steps - None, discussed above 5. AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
Hello Edmon, I think the idea of not overlapping with other current PDPs is a good one. The PDP will allow to have in the initial report in addition to the current document set potential list of the items, which might be changed or with which IDN policy (I think if it is PDP -> in the end we hope to have a policy). As I mentioned before, we have not dived into operational and legal part (of what might be caused by 'the same entity' idea for the existing domains and for domains, where different rightful owners have TM rights, for example for variants of the same word). I believe we need to review more in deep overlaps of SSAC060 and IDN Guidelines and to add it to the documents not just as a bit of text mentioning the relevance , but to investigate to what degree and what should we do in the team about it. Also I believe that there are more than two stakeholder groups (it is not just Registrars and Registries), who are going to be most affected by the 'same entity' owner for variants idea, but the TM owners and Registrants, so it would be reasonable to request input from the SGs. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 11 Dec 2019, at 02:19, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Steve.
It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required
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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ...> 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-...>
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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January.
Edmon
From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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
Dear Team,
With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC.
Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw <https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw>
Best, Steve
== 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.
NOTES Welcome and roll call
- Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.
Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ...>
- 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.
ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint.
After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...>
- 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.
ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed.
Possible next steps
- None, discussed above
AOB
- None
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&e=>_______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping>
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Edmon, Steve, et al I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”. The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues? Thanks, Dennis From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Thanks Steve. It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required 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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... 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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January. Edmon From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. 2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. 3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. 4. Possible next steps - None, discussed above 5. AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
Hi Dennis, Maxim, all, Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available. Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions. Best, Steve From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM To: "edmon@registry.asia" <edmon@registry.asia>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Edmon, Steve, et al I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”. The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues? Thanks, Dennis From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Thanks Steve. It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required 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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] 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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January. Edmon From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. 2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. 3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. 4. Possible next steps - None, discussed above 5. AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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 located on the GNSO Master Calendar
On the topic of (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall: 1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted. 2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy. Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work? Edmon From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; edmon@registry.asia; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Hi Dennis, Maxim, all, Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available. Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions. Best, Steve From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com> > Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM To: "edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> " <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> >, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> " <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Edmon, Steve, et al I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”. The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues? Thanks, Dennis From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> > Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> > Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> " <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Thanks Steve. It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required 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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January. Edmon From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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 Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. 2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. 3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. 4. Possible next steps - None, discussed above 5. AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
Hi Edmon, I do not see the way for the 1. until the 2. resulted in a policy (if guidelines extensively refer to variants which is not defined in the policy work). There is a strong reason for this, without due policy work we can not be sure we see all implications. For contracted parties where should be something more than pages of text that an expert group produced, and which did not have review of the legal and operational implications. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 12 Dec 2019, at 05:01, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> wrote:
On the topic of (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall:
1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted.
2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy.
Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work?
Edmon
From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>; edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Hi Dennis, Maxim, all,
Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available.
Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions.
Best, Steve
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM To: "edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>" <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Edmon, Steve, et al
I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”.
The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues?
Thanks, Dennis
From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Thanks Steve.
It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required
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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January.
Edmon
From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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
Dear Team,
With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC.
Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw <https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw>
Best, Steve
== 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.
NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call
- Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.
2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
- 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.
ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint.
3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...>
- 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.
ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed.
4. Possible next steps
- None, discussed above
5. AOB
- None
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&e=>_______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping>
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 IDN Implementation Guidelines have been put in place since 2003 for all Contracted Parties… it was referred to and included in the GNSO Policy Recommendations for new gTLDs in 2007 and subsequently in the AGB. So it does form part of the GNSO Policies as I understand it. The IDN Implementation Guidelines have always included the consideration of IDN Variants, albeit in a less robust form than in Version 4.0. Much of the IDN Implementation Guidelines work was informed and motivated by the consideration of potential homograph concerns as well as user experience. I understand that in the future, there is interest to re look at how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be reviewed and updated and perhaps reformatted, but based on our discussions early on, I believe there was agreement that we should focus on a few specific issues identified that needed execution corrections/clarifications for version 4.0: 1. The issue of IDN Tables and to confirm that existing LGRs can be used as-is 2. The RA/RAA reference to the IDN Implementation Guidelines 3. The acceptable implementation for allocating IDN Variants to the same registrant only These could be taken up by a Contracted Party house team directly with ICANN staff. Edmon From: Maxim Alzoba [mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 5:19 PM To: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] [Ext] Re: Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Hi Edmon, I do not see the way for the 1. until the 2. resulted in a policy (if guidelines extensively refer to variants which is not defined in the policy work). There is a strong reason for this, without due policy work we can not be sure we see all implications. For contracted parties where should be something more than pages of text that an expert group produced, and which did not have review of the legal and operational implications. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 12 Dec 2019, at 05:01, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> > wrote: On the topic of (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall: 1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted. 2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy. Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work? Edmon From: Steve Chan [ <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis < <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com> dtantanaka@verisign.com>; <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia; <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Hi Dennis, Maxim, all, Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available. Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions. Best, Steve From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" < <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com> dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM To: " <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia" < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia>, Steve Chan < <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> steve.chan@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Edmon, Steve, et al I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”. The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues? Thanks, Dennis From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping < <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping < <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Reply-To: Edmon Chung < <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> edmon@registry.asia> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' < <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> steve.chan@icann.org>, " <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC Thanks Steve. It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required 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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] 2. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] 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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January. Edmon From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [ <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan via gnso-council-IDN-scoping Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 4:02 AM To: <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> 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 Dear Team, With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw> https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw Best, Steve == 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. NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call - Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants. 2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] - 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants. ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint. 3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... - 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO. ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed. 4. Possible next steps - None, discussed above 5. AOB - None Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> steve.chan@icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> GNSO Master Calendar _______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list <mailto:gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org> gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping _______________________________________________ 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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.
Just for clarity, The history has nothing to do with the legal obligations of parties. CPH ExComs decide what to do basing on the input (in our case not ready yet, and no policy to speak of) and the need to things (not much to speak either), not because we think that it might be a good idea. CPH Team will not be formed before the decision of CPH ExComs to do so. I do not believe that there will be anything to speak of on CPH level prior to the delivery of the policy work. P.s: and the reason for our group to exist is that CPH saw the materials provided by the previous expert group as no basis for the things to be changed yet (it is possible to check the transcripts of the GNSO Council meetings, where the idea was deffered). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 12 Dec 2019, at 13:05, Edmon <edmon@registry.asia> wrote:
The IDN Implementation Guidelines have been put in place since 2003 for all Contracted Parties… it was referred to and included in the GNSO Policy Recommendations for new gTLDs in 2007 and subsequently in the AGB. So it does form part of the GNSO Policies as I understand it.
The IDN Implementation Guidelines have always included the consideration of IDN Variants, albeit in a less robust form than in Version 4.0. Much of the IDN Implementation Guidelines work was informed and motivated by the consideration of potential homograph concerns as well as user experience.
I understand that in the future, there is interest to re look at how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be reviewed and updated and perhaps reformatted, but based on our discussions early on, I believe there was agreement that we should focus on a few specific issues identified that needed execution corrections/clarifications for version 4.0: 1. The issue of IDN Tables and to confirm that existing LGRs can be used as-is 2. The RA/RAA reference to the IDN Implementation Guidelines 3. The acceptable implementation for allocating IDN Variants to the same registrant only
These could be taken up by a Contracted Party house team directly with ICANN staff.
Edmon
From: Maxim Alzoba [mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com <mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 5:19 PM To: Edmon <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] [Ext] Re: Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Hi Edmon,
I do not see the way for the 1. until the 2. resulted in a policy (if guidelines extensively refer to variants which is not defined in the policy work).
There is a strong reason for this, without due policy work we can not be sure we see all implications.
For contracted parties where should be something more than pages of text that an expert group produced, and which did not have review of the legal and operational implications.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 12 Dec 2019, at 05:01, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> wrote:
On the topic of (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall:
1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted.
2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy.
Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work?
Edmon
From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>>; edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Hi Dennis, Maxim, all,
Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available.
Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions.
Best, Steve
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM To: "edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>" <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Edmon, Steve, et al
I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”.
The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues?
Thanks, Dennis
From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Reply-To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Thanks Steve.
It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required
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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2): 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January.
Edmon
From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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
Dear Team,
With apologies for the late delivery, please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC.
Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note 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://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw <https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw>
Best, Steve
== 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.
NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call
- Edmon may need to leave meeting early - Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now. - GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.
2. Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
- 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present. - First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.
ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team - 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 constraint.
3. After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...>
- 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.
ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed.
4. Possible next steps
- None, discussed above
5. AOB
- None
Steven Chan >> Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >>
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping>
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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, I'm really trying to be of any substantive use / help , or to contribute to this team to the best of my knowledge and/or abilities ... I went trough the proposed working documents and emails in this thread. "Pardon my French" but, I cannot orientate in the dozens of acronyms ... I'm not new to ICANN nor IPC and GNSO ... but I come from exclusively "ccTLD word" (as I did mention several times - 99% of the internet traffic in Eastern Europe is based on ccTLD's ) So, if you would need an opinion or open discussion to more "simple/ down to earth " problems than these elaborated in the Action & Notes below, fell free to reach me at any time and I will be more than happy and eager to join you! I wish you successful work! With sincere collegial regards, A I -- Aleksandar Ichokjaev Of Counsel Debarliev, Dameski & Kelesoska Attorneys at law Str. Mirce Acev 2 / 3rd Floor 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia tel. ++ 389 2 3215471 fax.++ 389 2 3215470 e-mail: ichokjaev@ddklaw.com.mk web: www.ddklaw.com.mk TLA Top-tier Legal Adriatic NORTH MACEDONIA SERBIA CROATIA SLOVENIA MONTENEGRO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA This is a confidential communication intended only for the named addressee. If you received this communication in error, please notify us and return and delete it without reading it. This e-mail may not be disclosed, copied, or distributed in any way and in any case it may not be altered or otherwise changed. On 12/12/19 03:01, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping wrote:
On the topic of
(i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables
Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall:
1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted.
2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy.
Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work?
Edmon
*From:*Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM *To:* Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; edmon@registry.asia; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Hi Dennis, Maxim, all,
Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available.
Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM *To: *"edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>" <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Edmon, Steve, et al
I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”.
The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues?
Thanks, Dennis
*From: *gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> *Date: *Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM *To: *'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Thanks Steve.
It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed
B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required
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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2):
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January.
Edmon
*From:*gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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
Dear Team,
With apologies for the late delivery, please find below theactionitemsandnotescaptured during theIDNScoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC.
Staff has posted to the wiki space theactionitemsandnotes. */Please note that these are high-levelnotesandare not meant as a substitute for the recordingandchat room records/*, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw
Best,
Steve
==
*ActionItem*
/- 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./
*NOTES*
1.Welcome and roll call
- Edmon may need to leave meeting early
- Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now.
- GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.
2.Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
- 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present.
- First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.
*ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team
- 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 constraint.
3.After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...
- 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.
*ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed.
4.Possible next steps
- None, discussed above
5.AOB
- None
*Steven Chan** *
Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping
_______________________________________________ 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.
_Re-sending due to <delivery failure notification> , apologies ! _ Dear all, I'm really trying to be of any substantive use / help , or to contribute to this team to the best of my knowledge and/or abilities ... I went trough the proposed working documents and emails in this thread. "Pardon my French" but, I cannot orientate in the dozens of acronyms ... I'm not new to ICANN nor IPC and GNSO ... but I come from exclusively "ccTLD world" (as I did mention several times - 99% of the internet traffic in Eastern Europe is based on ccTLD's ) So, if you would need an opinion or open discussion to more "simple/ down to earth " problems than these elaborated in the Action & Notes below, fell free to reach me at any time and I will be more than happy and eager to join you! I wish you successful work! With sincere collegial regards, A I -- Aleksandar Ichokjaev Of Counsel Debarliev, Dameski & Kelesoska Attorneys at law Str. Mirce Acev 2 / 3rd Floor 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia tel. ++ 389 2 3215471 fax.++ 389 2 3215470 e-mail:ichokjaev@ddklaw.com.mk web:www.ddklaw.com.mk TLA Top-tier Legal Adriatic NORTH MACEDONIA SERBIA CROATIA SLOVENIA MONTENEGRO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA This is a confidential communication intended only for the named addressee. If you received this communication in error, please notify us and return and delete it without reading it. This e-mail may not be disclosed, copied, or distributed in any way and in any case it may not be altered or otherwise changed. On 12/12/19 14:20, Aleksandar Ichokjaev wrote:
Dear all,
I'm really trying to be of any substantive use / help , or to contribute to this team to the best of my knowledge and/or abilities ... I went trough the proposed working documents and emails in this thread.
"Pardon my French" but, I cannot orientate in the dozens of acronyms ... I'm not new to ICANN nor IPC and GNSO ... but I come from exclusively "ccTLD word" (as I did mention several times - 99% of the internet traffic in Eastern Europe is based on ccTLD's )
So, if you would need an opinion or open discussion to more "simple/ down to earth " problems than these elaborated in the Action & Notes below, fell free to reach me at any time and I will be more than happy and eager to join you!
I wish you successful work!
With sincere collegial regards,
A I
-- Aleksandar Ichokjaev Of Counsel
Debarliev, Dameski & Kelesoska Attorneys at law Str. Mirce Acev 2 / 3rd Floor 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia tel. ++ 389 2 3215471 fax.++ 389 2 3215470 e-mail:ichokjaev@ddklaw.com.mk web:www.ddklaw.com.mk
TLA Top-tier Legal Adriatic NORTH MACEDONIA SERBIA CROATIA SLOVENIA MONTENEGRO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
This is a confidential communication intended only for the named addressee. If you received this communication in error, please notify us and return and delete it without reading it. This e-mail may not be disclosed, copied, or distributed in any way and in any case it may not be altered or otherwise changed.
On 12/12/19 03:01, Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping wrote:
On the topic of
(i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables
Based on discussions earlier in the process, I had in my mind that we would be recommending 2 streams of work overall:
1. A Contracted Party working/negotiation/implementation team that would be focused on IDN Implementation Guidelines 4.0 operational issues (which includes the above and closely related to RA/RRA), to resolve immediate issues and allow for the guidelines 4.0 to be adopted.
2. A PDP/EPDP that would have a scope including both the IDN Variant TLD define, manage, and coordinate issues as well as the related issue of how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be revised in the future so that it becomes a GNSO policy.
Does this reconcile with other’s recollection and does this direction work?
Edmon
*From:*Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org] *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:58 AM *To:* Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka@verisign.com>; edmon@registry.asia; gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Hi Dennis, Maxim, all,
Dennis great point - if you take a look at the agenda, you’ll see item 3 is about next steps. One of the likely items for discussion here is how the two documents generated by this group fit together. I believe Edmon mentioned that his initial thought is that the options paper, which describes the operational issues you note below, would serve as the main document and then the scoping document recently discussed would serve as more of an Annex, providing evidence of the background materials and issue analysis already conducted and available.
Maxim, the things you mention sound more like substantive discussions that would take place during policy development. Based on my understanding and using one of your concerns as an example, the remit of this scoping team would be to identify if the “same entity” recommendations and the impacts on other elements (like RPMs) should be examined during policy development, but not to delve into the substance of the issue nor consider solutions.
Best,
Steve
*From: *"Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com <mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 2:32 PM *To: *"edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>" <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Edmon, Steve, et al
I made a few comments in the Issue Scoping doc; mainly about elaborating on the IDN Guidelines issue and incorporating it in the “Objectives of a possible EPDP”.
The below email discusses the policy issues but I’d like to see a discussion on the operational issues as well: (i) potential conflicts between RA and IDN Guidelines and (ii) updating and evolving IDN tables. Perhaps this is coming after we wrap up the policy issues?
Thanks, Dennis
*From: *gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Edmon via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Reply-To: *Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia>> *Date: *Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 6:19 PM *To: *'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org <mailto:gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting on 5 December at 3:00 UTC
Thanks Steve.
It seems clear at this point we should 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 Issues Report needs to be developed
B) An EPDP, for which the only difference from a PDP is a further Issues Report is not required
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 issues (1) as well as the listing of the background documents (2):
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
2. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhbIIpua9_3s_0G-LMNQ3hdWo8SkIxObUSpfJPk-... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
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 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 there 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 membership 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 council before its meeting in January.
Edmon
*From:*gnso-council-IDN-scoping [mailto:gnso-council-idn-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 <mailto: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
Dear Team,
With apologies for the late delivery, please find below theactionitemsandnotescaptured during theIDNScoping Team call on Thursday, 5 December at 3:00 UTC.
Staff has posted to the wiki space theactionitemsandnotes. */Please note that these are high-levelnotesandare not meant as a substitute for the recordingandchat room records/*, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/z5czBw
Best,
Steve
==
*ActionItem*
/- 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./
*NOTES*
1.Welcome and roll call
- Edmon may need to leave meeting early
- Update on coordination with the SubPro PDP – 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-LGR, currently under Board consideration, but they should be aware that it’s a fluid situation of they indeed review the document now.
- GNSO policies 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 against the SubPro recommendations on IDN variants.
2.Review of new Issue Scoping Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13tO5IP64EAnFebdefRahK3vuhIBzUEdl1oeGFBnQ... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
- 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 Report, 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 Report and make sure that all of the required elements are present.
- First part is about identifying the problems that need to be solved, which 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 for 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 also, by reference, a comprehensive list of documents related to IDN variants.
*ACTION – 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 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 out 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 team
- 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 constraint.
3.After discussing agenda item 2, revisiting the options paper:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qx...
- 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 separate new gTLDs versus existing gTLDs, Option C is a PDP or EPDP, Option 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, and why. Also indicates that GNSO should not feel obligated to follow pace of ccNSO.
*ACTION – 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 notes that some believe that the set of documents is not holistic and that further analysis is needed.
4.Possible next steps
- None, discussed above
5.AOB
- None
*Steven Chan** *
Policy Director, GNSO Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-council-IDN-scoping mailing list gnso-council-IDN-scoping@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-council-idn-scoping
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Aleksandar Ichokjaev Of Counsel Debarliev, Dameski & Kelesoska Attorneys at law Str. Mirce Acev 2 / 3rd Floor 1000 Skopje, Macedonia tel. ++ 389 2 3215471 fax.++ 389 2 3215470 e-mail: ichokjaev@ddklaw.com.mk web: www.ddklaw.com.mk TLA Top-tier Legal Adriatic MACEDONIA SERBIA CROATIA SLOVENIA MONTENEGRO BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA This is a confidential communication intended only for the named addressee. If you received this communication in error, please notify us and return and delete it without reading it. This e-mail may not be disclosed, copied, or distributed in any way and in any case it may not be altered or otherwise changed.
participants (5)
-
Aleksandar Ichokjaev -
Edmon -
Maxim Alzoba -
Steve Chan -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis