October 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #54 - 13 October 2022
by Emily Barabas Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 13 October 2022 Action Items Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to respond on list about whether to do one Final Report or two Final Reports. Action Item 2: ALAC representatives to take into account RySG feedback on the proposed IG and provide additional feedback. Notes SOI updates * Maxim is no longer a GNSO Councilor. Welcome and Chair Updates * Today’s discussion focuses on several topics we have discussed previously. Review of Revised Project Plan * Framing: the leadership team had further discussion after the EPDP Team call last week. Leadership team would like input from the Team on doing 2 Final Reports, one for phase 1 and a second for phase 2, rather than doing one combined Final Report. By doing two Final Reports, the timeline discussed last week will expand again. While the optics may not be favorable, it may be better from a pragmatic perspective. * As Chair, Donna supports two Final Reports, which will allow the EPDP to deliver top-level recommendations to the Council and then the Board while the phase 2 work progresses. * Leadership understands that some in Council will have questions about the length of the extended timeline. The original estimates were rough estimates and they were optimistic. The new estimates build on what we now know. They are conservative, so that the Team does not need to continue to submit additional PCRs every time there is slippage on a milestone. * The goal is to deliver the work ahead of the revised schedule. * The EPDP Team might want to consider if there are times when it might be helpful to have two meetings a week, for example to support conversations that are more complicated and require introduction before deliberations. * To consider: How can we do our work a little differently to help us speed up the work? * Slide 4 – Option 1: One Phased Approach (Updated) * Initial Report Part 1 Public Comment: 21 April 2023 * Initial Report Part 2 Public Comment: 3 January 2025 * Final Report submission to Council: 29 August 2025 * Slide 5 – Option 2: Two Phase Approach * Phase 1 Initial Report Public Comment: 21 April 2023 * Phase 1 Final Report submission to Council: 3 November 2023 * Phase 2 Initial Report Public Comment: 25 April 2025 * Phase 2 Final Report submission to Council: 7 November 2025 * Because this group is representative across the community and we are taking time to get input from org along the way, when we put the Initial Report out it will be in relatively good shape. We shouldn’t get a lot of public comments that require substantive work. Therefore, the Final Report should be submitted to Council well before November next year. * With phase 2, if TechOps can do considerable work to help support that work, that puts the group in a position to do substantive work through 2024. * EPDP Team leadership met with Karen Lentz’s team (ICANN org GDS). Recognizing that the ODA should be provided to the Board in Dec this year, the next steps are still being determined. * Leadership team is aware of the dependency of this work on the next round and will keep in contact with Karen’s team as they develop timelines for next rounds. There are still some unknowns on the next rounds timeline and we will do our best to make sure that the EPDP is not getting in the way of that work. * Comment: It would be helpful for Edmon to go back to the Board and get feedback on the dependency between this work and next rounds. The EPDP should try to beat this timeline. We should try to be more aggressive, especially in phase 2. If we set conservative timelines, we will meet and not beat them. The first phase work without the second phase work may not be sufficient for subsequent rounds planning. * Edmon will take this issue back to the Board and seek to provide feedback. * Comment: If there is an opportunity for F2F time, we should explore that. * Comment: Agreement that the timeline is conservative and we can aim to beat it, but it is useful to lay out for the community that there are difficult issues that need to be hashed out. IDNs could possibly go ahead in subsequent rounds without variants. * Question: Is there anything in Phase 2 that would impact next round? * Response: In conversations with Karen’s team and at the leadership level, even though the second level topics wouldn’t kick in until after delegation, the details of some elements may need to be incorporated into the AGB and the application process itself. The implementation of SubPro is a considerable amount of work. There are many moving parts. * Looking at the two approaches, the one phase approach only saves two months of time. * Outstanding question – we don’t know how long it will take TechOps to do its work prior to phase 2. There will be conversations about this in the CP Summit the first week of November. Hopefully we can get a better sense of this following the Summit and that input can feed into thinking about Phase 2 timeline. We might be able to have a small group working on Phase 2 charter questions at the same time as we are finalizing the phase 1 report. * Informal “temperature of the room”—13 responded in favor of two Final Reports and none in favor of one Final Report. Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to respond on list about whether to do one Final Report or two Final Reports. * Suggestion from one member to have a face-to-face retreat for a 2-3 day period. Leadership can look into whether this is feasible and whether that would be productive. Review language for recommendation 2.6 * ALAC proposed language in second to last sentence of the rationale of recommendation 2.6: “Therefore, the applicant will be required to respond to additional application questions to address why they seek to activate those variant label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and expected usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage the set operationally to achieve the security and usability goals for their set in a stable manner. This would contribute to ensuring a good user experience.” * ALAC proposed IG (new): “Implementation Guidance 2.xx: Submission by applicants of supporting information must allow for a consistent and meaningful evaluation by evaluators with the requisite expertise.” * ALAC rationale: Regarding revised rationale, suggested elements are already included in the Charter, so they are appropriate to include here. Additional IG speaks to previous comments from RySG. * Comment: from RySG perspective, we are coming closer to middle ground. We are moving away from expectations that registries manage consistent user experience, which is good. Regarding usability goals and user experience, it’s true that the charter calls these out without defining them. It’s important to look at how those terms are used in the charter in context. Regarding usability goals, the biggest usability goal is to have a management framework to allow those labels into the root zone. In terms of good user experience, the context in the charter is focused on how IDN tables are set up and provide consistency in terms of the results they produce. However, they do not need to behave the same with respect to the disposition values. If refer back to the context of how those terms are being used, the language may be acceptable. * On the proposed IG, comment from the RySG perspective: It should be the process and requirements that should set up for a consistent and predictable process, not the submission by the applicant. Every step of the evaluation process needs to be meaningful and we would expect that the necessary expertise is being leveraged. Why would we need to emphasize those aspects of the evaluation process? We expect them to happen regardless. * ALAC response: This is the first time we are doing this evaluation element, so we think it should be called out. ALAC will provide a more detailed response with possible proposed revision. * Perhaps what is more important is that evaluation of IDN applications should be consistent. There isn’t a way to ensure that what the applicants provide is consistent unless there is a technical format that needs to be followed. That is not something that is possible. From one perspective the proposed IG needs re-consideration. Action Item 2: ALAC representatives to take into account RySG feedback on the proposed IG and provide additional feedback. Approach to string similarity (Charter Questions B4a, E3a, and E4) * While there seems to be some support for the hybrid model, there are some items from the feedback to discuss. * Slides 8 – 12 – summary of feedback and positions submitted on the mailing list. * ALAC, GAC, and NCSG supported the hybrid model. * RySG raised additional considerations: string similarity process should not rely solely on the RZ-LGR for visually confusable labels, but may be used as an input; careful consideration should be given to implementation to achieve consistency and predictability of outcomes; procedure should identify and remove mix-script labels from further consideration to avoid unnecessary work. * IPC -- hybrid model needs to have an exception process. For example, if there is a Brand that has a name which happens to be a non-allocatable variant of another string that has been delegated, then we believe that new Brand should be able to overcome any potential string similarity review of string confusion objection. * Elaboration from IPC – without an exception process there is not support for the hybrid model. * Comment: the hybrid model doesn’t create the situation in the case of objections. It’s the implementation of the RZ-LGR that makes this the case. We’d have to change the RZ-LGR to make this exception possible. * Response: Disagree, it is the hybrid model that would be a limiting factor. * When we talked about the hybrid model, we talked about the ability to appeal (object), which may allow for this exception process. Objection by a brand owner could then allow them to use their string in the next round. * Response: Brand owners will not be monitoring applications on an ongoing basis and file objections preventatively. * We need to ensure if trademark owner can object, that we take into account how long the trademark has been around to prevent gaming. * Appeal had a specific meaning in SubPro. This is something different. The term rebuttable presumption or similar should be used because the standard is different. * Next step: Throughout the discussion about the hybrid model and the different alternatives, the ability to implement has been on our minds. Now that we see that there is some support for the hybrid model with conditions, the Team will see what feedback ICANN org comes back with from an implementation perspective and then pick up on this conversation again.

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 06 October 2022
by Devan Reed Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 06 October 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/P4KkD> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/uAPpCQ>. Thank you! Kind Regards, Devan

1 0

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 20 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 20 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/RIKkD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/mkutnxtt ONLY for Members and Participants * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Reminder: Confirm Updated Outcome Text: D2 & D3
by Ariel Liang Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear All, This is a reminder for reviewing the updated outcome text for charter questions D2 and D3 by EOB tomorrow (Friday, 14 October). Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Confirm Updated Outcome Text: D2 & D3 Dear All, Please be so kind to review the updated outcome text for charter questions D2 and D3 (pp. 5-6), incorporating input received during the second reading by the EPDP Team on 1 September 2022. If not further input is received by Friday, 14 October, these draft text will be regarded stable. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0

Reminder: Draft Request to CJK GPs to Initiate Work on Single-Character TLDs
by Ariel Liang Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear All, This is a friendly reminder for reviewing the draft request to CJK GPs on single-character TLDs. Please provide input (if any), by EOB tomorrow (Friday, 14 October). Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 11:51 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Draft Request to CJK GPs to Initiate Work on Single-Character TLDs Dear All, During the meeting today, the EPDP Team was informed of the discussion the leadership team had with the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Generation Panel (CJK GP) chairs during ICANN75. The CJK GP chairs indicated preliminary agreement on helping address Part 2 of the charter question A7 – i.e., conducting additional work to identify guidelines and/or a list of Han characters that should not be allowed as single-character TLDs. Staff have prepared a draft letter as an official request from the EPDP Team to the GPs to initiate this work. If you have any comment or question for the draft, please share on list by Friday, 14 October: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RfTfiNrJRzrH6WbTSH8E1tyiu22s6PWd0ytqiZ1… Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0

Reminder: Share Current Views on String Similarity Review Hybrid Model
by Ariel Liang Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear All, In the upcoming meeting on Thursday, 13 October, the team is expected to discuss the String Similarity Review topic and the hybrid model proposed by the small group. During the meeting yesterday, several members provided a preview of their groups’ positions on the hybrid model. To facilitate an effective discussion next week, the leadership team is requesting members, especially those who could not make it to yesterday’s call, to circulate your groups’ current views on the hybrid model on the mailing list by EOB Tuesday, 11 October. Please also share the rationale, caveats, and other considerations (if any). Thank you, Steve, Emily, Ariel

6 7

13 MINUTES REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Oct. 13, 2022

Oct. 13, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/P4KkD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc8aknat [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc8aknat__;!!PtGJab4!5tkbGk1…> ONLY for Members and Participants * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

"Consistent user experience" and "usability goals" as part of the Rationale of Rec 2.6
by Satish Babu Oct. 12, 2022

Oct. 12, 2022

Dear all, The ALAC Team respectfully submits that both the phrases "consistent user experience" and "usability goal" are inspired by the Charter of the EPDP on IDNs. The phrase "security and usability goals" appears four times in the Charter, and the phrase "good user experience" once. In particular, the Preamble states that: This EPDP is expected to provide the GNSO Council with policy recommendations on: i) the definition of all gTLDs and the management of variant labels to facilitate the delegation of variant gTLDs in the root zone while achieving the *security and usability goal of variant labels in a stable manner*; and ii) how the IDN Implementation Guidelines, which Contracted Parties are required to comply with, should be updated in the future. >From this, it appears to us that security, stability, and usability are all important goals. Since Recommendation 2.6 states that the applicant will be “required to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and the applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and operational perspective”, we believe that the Rationale should refer to these goals. Accordingly, we propose the following formulation for Implementation Guidance (new) and Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 where our proposed edits are marked in blue text, while the pink text indicates the current edits that are being considered. The proposed Implementation Guidance xx is borne out of Dennis' comment for clarity with respect to the last 2 sentences in the Rationale. The Recommendation itself is unchanged and is provided for completeness. *Recommendation 2.6:* The applicant will be required, as part of the application process, to explain the reason(s) why it needs to activate the applied-for variant label(s). In addition, the applicant will be required to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and the applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and operational perspective. Implementation Guidance xx: Submission by applicants of supporting information must allow for a consistent and meaningful evaluation by evaluators with the requisite expertise. Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 and Implementation Guidance xx: As IDN gTLDs and variant labels that are considered a set are yet to be delegated and operated at the root zone level, there is uncertainty about how the set will be managed and operated by the registry operator from a technical and user perspective. Therefore, it will be important that applicants are able to explain their need for a set of IDN variant label(s) as well as demonstrate their technical capability to operate and manage the set. ThereforeConsequently, the applicant will be required to respond to additional application questions to address why they seek to activate those variant label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and expected usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage the set operationally to achieve the security, stability, and usability goals for their set in a stable manner. This would contribute to ensuring a good user experience. IDN variants as well as how it plans to manage the set operationally, with a view to ensuring a secure, stable, and consistent user experience. The applicant’s response to these questions is expected to be a critical component in the evaluation process. Evaluators with requisite expertise are expected to assess these responses. In other words, we are proposing that the Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and Rationale read as follows, *Recommendation 2.6:* The applicant will be required, as part of the application process, to explain the reason(s) why it needs to activate the applied-for variant label(s). In addition, the applicant will be required to demonstrate their ability to manage the primary IDN gTLD and the applied-for variant label(s) as a set from both a technical and operational perspective. Implementation Guidance xx: Submission by applicants of supporting information must allow for a consistent and meaningful evaluation by evaluators with the requisite expertise. Rationale for Recommendation 2.6 and Implementation Guidance xx: As IDN gTLDs and variant labels that are considered a set are yet to be delegated and operated at the root zone level, there is uncertainty about how the set will be managed and operated by the registry operator from a technical and user perspective. Therefore, it will be important that applicants are able to explain their need for a set of IDN variant label(s) as well as demonstrate their technical capability to operate and manage the set. Consequently, the applicant will be required to respond to additional application questions to address why they seek to activate those variant label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and expected usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage the set operationally to achieve the security and usability goals for their set in a stable manner. This would contribute to ensuring a good user experience. The applicant’s response to these questions is expected to be a critical component in the evaluation process. Evaluators with requisite expertise are expected to assess these responses. With kind regards satish

3 2

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Oct. 12, 2022

Oct. 12, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/P4KkD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc8aknat ONLY for Members and Participants * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Correction: Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #54 - Thursday 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Emily Barabas Oct. 11, 2022

Oct. 11, 2022

Dear all, Small correction, the meeting is not tomorrow. It is indeed on Thursday 13 October, the day after tomorrow. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 09:15 To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #54 - Thursday 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting tomorrow, Thursday 13 October 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #54 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 mins) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Review of Revised Project Plan (15 mins) 4. Review language for recommendation 2.6 (20 mins) 5. Approach to string similarity (Charter Questions B4a, E3a, and E4) (45 mins) 6. Charter Question D1b (time permitting) 7. AOB (3 mins)

1 0