April 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #33 - 28 April 2022
by Emily Barabas 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item 1: Staff to request volunteers to join a small group tasked with developing examples related to Levels 1, 2, and 3. Staff to circulate a doodle to find a time for the small group to meet. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 28 April 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) * On today’s call EPDP Team members will be able to explain their responses on the mailing list regarding the three “levels” so that the group can try to converge on an approach to Charter Questions E3, E1 (Part 1), and E3a. Charter Questions E3, E1 (part 1), E3a – Continued Discussion of the Three Levels (50 min) * Slide 4 – overview of Charter Questions E3, E1 (part 1), E3a * Slide 5 – Comparison matrix – explanatory notes * Slide 6 – Comparison matrix – consolidated view * Slide 7 – Comparison matrix – factors for consideration * Comment: In Level 1, all entities will know that they can get the strings they apply for and if they apply in the future, they may not be able to get them based on the review for confusing similarity. The EPDP Team member disagrees with the consequences listed on the slide. Level 1, 2, and 3 all guarantee that there will be no confusability. None provides better protection than another in this regard. * Slide 8 – Level 1: Primary + ONLY requested allocatable variants * Comment: Support this option if variants can only be requested inside application rounds. This is not a contribution on behalf of RySG. RySG does not have a position on this topic. This level is sufficient because it is a safeguard against allocating variants that would be confusable to other strings that are allocated. There is no need to check any future potential confusability of labels that may never be applied for or allocated. That would only restrict the space without any really necessity. * Comment: Support for the above comment. No need to restrict the space without reason. Level 1 does not restrict the space without reason, entails the least similarity work, and involves the lowest cost. The only drawback is that if an entity does not apply for an allocatable variant initially it might not be able to get it later. But if the applicant knows this from the beginning, it can apply for the variants it wants at the outset. All three levels are the same in terms on avoiding confusability. Whether level 1 or 2 is better depends on costs associated and whether applicants can activate strings only within rounds or at any time. * Slide 9 – Primary + ALL Allocatable Variants * Comment: Support this option if variants can be requested outside of application rounds. If a registry can request any allocatable variant at any time, level 1 is not enough. In this case, at the application round of the originally applied for TLD we need to check all of the allocatable variants. We need to ensure from the start that these allocations will be possible. * Comment: Support for level 2 because it narrows the chances of confusability in the same round which improves predictability. It presents a good balance from a cost perspective. * Comment: Support because it provides flexibility and opportunity while ensuring a degree of protection of confusability. * Comment: Some support depending on other elements such as costs associated with each string applied for and when a string could be applied for. Allows entity to ensure that all of their allocatable strings and all other possible future similar strings would be blocked. This creates predictability because all entities have their original string and allocatable variants. No other TLD in the future could apply for those allocatable variants. This is a good middle ground. * Comment: ALAC supports Level 1 if costs associated with the applied for string is high. In such a case Level 2 doesn’t make sense. If the cost is relatively low, Level 2 is more appropriate. From the perspective of confusability, they all provide the same level of protection. * Slide 10 – Level 3: Primary + ALL Variants * Comment: Support for level 3, with continuous technological improvements in improvements in reducing Risk Evaluation time of assessment. Suggestion to use AI to support the evaluation. The EPDP Team previously discussed that AI may not be able to be leveraged for this purpose. * Comment: There are many complaints about misuse of domain (mainly .brands). String similarity can cause more issues. * Comment: We might also need to think about if we go with Level 1 or 2, what does first come first serve mean when prior round applicants activate variants. In the case of Level 3, that would not be an issue. In the case of 1 and 2 that would be an extra point of consideration. * Comment: In Level 2 all would have been taken care of as well. * Comment: We have been looking at this from the perspective of applicants, but we also want to make the space less confusing from an end user perspective. This is the underlying motivation of string similarity review. Examples: At the second level, if we have myname.com vs. myname.org there is no confusability. If we replace .com and .org with strings that are similar – myname.tld vs. myname.tld’ where tld’ is very similar to .tld, this might be confusing for the end user. If myname.tld is similar to a variant of another TLD that is delegated there could still be confusability from an end user perspective through a transitive relationship. Irrespective to whether the variant is allocatable, blocked, etc, there can still be confusability when there are two similar strings in the DNS space. * Example: Simplified and traditional Chinese – in most cases the two are visually distinct. If applicant A applies for a simplified Chinese version, which has a traditional version that looks different but is considered to be the same in meaning and has not been applied for. If applicant B applies for a traditional Chinese character that is visually very similar to traditional variants of the simplified character applied for by applicant A. If the comparison is done only for applied-for strings, the applied-for strings for applicant A and b will both be delegated, the end users can get confused by seeing the traditional version is the same as the simplified version. This will create confusion for all registrations under those TLDs. Level 1 will not prevent this scenario. * Comment: Preference for a combination of level 1 and level 3. For string similarity review there are two things to compare, Set A and Set B. If it includes variants there is Set A and Set B. Set A is the strings we would like to compare. Set B is the strings we compare against. Set A includes primary + only requested allocatable variants. Set B it includes reserved names, existing TLDs + All variants (allocatable and blocked variants), strings requested as IDN ccTLDs and all variants allocatable and blocked, other applied for gTLDs and all variants allocatable and blocked. The core of the problem is whether we allow applicants to request variants outside of a round. We should focus on Set B, which can decide what is similar or not. To meet the conservativism principle, Level 3 is best. Therefore, Set 1 is Level 1 and Set B is Level 3. * Discussion * Comment: Confusing similarity has always been only about visual similarity. Applying that principle, the maximum conservative approach is not consistent with the way we have always approached these things. How would this look in the case of variants that are not visually similar? How would this be any different from a case of two strings that have the same meaning but look different? It’s hard to compare these levels without examples. Why would we give additional protections here? * Response: The difference is 1. color vs. colour and 2. color vs COLOR. The example above is talking about case 1, IDN Variants is closer to case 2, whereas in English alphanumeric is how we deal with it today it is 'the same' but with IDN, we have a situation of 2. that is technically not the same but linquistically the same. * Comment: We have already acknowledged that the treatment of IDNs and variants is different from other strings. * Comment: That is the case within a variant set, but it is another level when we are talking about similarity across variant sets. * Comment: The primary position from ALAC is Level 2, but this position is conditional and some additional discussion might be needed. Examples would be helpful to support additional deliberations on this topic. * Question: If we reached an agreement on whether when you apply for the IDN and apply for the variants you want, it is done in a round, does this overcome any of the differences in this discussion? * Response: No, this would not necessarily settle the issue. * Comment: Agree that this would not resolve the issue. But if you go with Level 2 it should be possible to activate variants between rounds. * Comment: We should think about activation of variants like updating nameserver or updating the backend. It should involve technical checks but should be possible at any time. Allocating in rounds is not a good starting point. We should look at actual examples that address these issues visually. Maybe a small group should put some examples together. * Comment: Agree that this should be the case if you are activating a variant you already expressed interest for in an application. Disagree if the registry has not previously expressed interest in through an application. This is consistent with the SSAC advice, because applicants will have to explain how they can handle the variants and these statements need to evaluated. Action Item 1: Staff to request volunteers to join a small group tasked with developing examples related to Levels 1, 2, and 3. Staff to circulate a doodle to find a time for the small group to meet. AOB * Reminder to provide feedback on the outreach letter to GPs by Friday. It has been shared on the mailing list.

2 1

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 28 April 2022
by Devan Reed 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 21 April 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bwB1Cw> (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, 05 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 05 May 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/cQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2sm83j3n 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

ON NOW**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 28 April 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/bwB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4adwefbt [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4adwefbt__;!!PtGJab4!taqiZy_…> 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

Your Input Requested: String Similarity Review Level & Rationale
by Ariel Liang 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear EPDP Team, Thank you for the discussions to date on the string similarity review topic (charter questions E3, E1 (part1) and E3a). The leadership team appreciates that this is a difficult topic and that a range of views are evident across the Team, particularly on the three levels of string similarity review<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217195/EPDP%20Team%20Me…>. In order to facilitate the continued deliberation of this topic, the Leadership Team requests members to consider the three levels of string similarity review and indicate your preferred level of review, along with the reasons why this is your preferred level, on the list by Wednesday, 27 April 2022. When sharing your preference, please include responses to the following questions: 1. Why do you believe your preferred level of review is the most appropriate? 2. Based on your preferred level of review, what would be the string similarity review’s impact on preventing user confusion and security/stability issues in the DNS? In other words, how effective would string similarity review be in preventing delegation of similar strings? 3. Have you considered the feasibility of implementing the string similarity review based on your preferred level? For example, the complexity and costs involved to conduct the resulting review. The string similarity review topic is expected to be discussed again during the EPDP Team meeting next week (28 April 2022) and members and participants will be invited to speak to their respective preferences and rationales. As a reminder, the three levels are as follows (please see details in the slide deck<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217195/EPDP%20Team%20Me…>): * Level 1: Primary + ONLY Requested Allocatable Variants * Level 2: Primary + ALL Allocatable Variants * Level 3: Primary + ALL Allocatable and Blocked Variants Thank you for your contribution! Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

3 2

REMINDER - Your Input Requested: String Similarity Review Level & Rationale
by Ariel Liang 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

Dear EPDP Team, This is a reminder to provide your input on the string similarity review levels. Thanks very much to Michael and Anil for the input on list. Please be so kind to provide rationale for your preferred level and responses to the three questions as well. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:59 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Your Input Requested: String Similarity Review Level & Rationale Dear EPDP Team, Thank you for the discussions to date on the string similarity review topic (charter questions E3, E1 (part1) and E3a). The leadership team appreciates that this is a difficult topic and that a range of views are evident across the Team, particularly on the three levels of string similarity review<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217195/EPDP%20Team%20Me…>. In order to facilitate the continued deliberation of this topic, the Leadership Team requests members to consider the three levels of string similarity review and indicate your preferred level of review, along with the reasons why this is your preferred level, on the list by Wednesday, 27 April 2022. When sharing your preference, please include responses to the following questions: 1. Why do you believe your preferred level of review is the most appropriate? 2. Based on your preferred level of review, what would be the string similarity review’s impact on preventing user confusion and security/stability issues in the DNS? In other words, how effective would string similarity review be in preventing delegation of similar strings? 3. Have you considered the feasibility of implementing the string similarity review based on your preferred level? For example, the complexity and costs involved to conduct the resulting review. The string similarity review topic is expected to be discussed again during the EPDP Team meeting next week (28 April 2022) and members and participants will be invited to speak to their respective preferences and rationales. As a reminder, the three levels are as follows (please see details in the slide deck<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217195/EPDP%20Team%20Me…>): * Level 1: Primary + ONLY Requested Allocatable Variants * Level 2: Primary + ALL Allocatable Variants * Level 3: Primary + ALL Allocatable and Blocked Variants Thank you for your contribution! Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

5 4

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland 27 Apr '22

27 Apr '22

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 28 April 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/bwB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4adwefbt [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4adwefbt__;!!PtGJab4!taqiZy_…> 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

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #33 - Thursday 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas 26 Apr '22

26 Apr '22

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. In order to facilitate deliberations on item 3 of the agenda, the EPDP Team leadership may take the temperature of the room by a show of hands, using an appropriate function in the Zoom. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #33 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Charter Questions E3, E1 (part 1), E3a – Continued Discussion of the Three Levels (50 min) 4. Charter Question E5 – Continued Discussion of Reserved Names and Strings Ineligible for Delegation (30 min) 5. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0

Draft Outreach Letter to Generation Panels on Single-Character TLDs
by Ariel Liang 22 Apr '22

22 Apr '22

Dear All, As mentioned during yesterday’s meeting, please find the draft outreach letter to the Chairs of the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Generation Panels regarding the single-character TLD question: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yep2XJPuh3ORU2rW73CpS3WT5aOOGRNSn3wQASN… Besides seeking their input on the criteria/mechanism for identifying allowable characters for single-character TLDs in the Han script, the letter also seeks their input on potential criteria for evaluating single-character TLD applications, particularly in the context of string confusion. While this ask may be outside their remit, the Chairs of the GPs may have feedback as the string confusion topic may be discussed in the GPs in the context of variants. Please be so kind to provide your input/feedback, if any, by EOB Friday, 29 April. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Confusing similarity
by CEO NIXI 22 Apr '22

22 Apr '22

Dear Ariel,Emily,Steve, Donna, Justin and other Team members, I would like to recommend Level 3 with continuous technological improvements in reducing Risk Evaluation time of assessment . Thanks, Anil Kumar Jain CEO, NIXI [ https://rashtragaan.in/ ]

1 0