May 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Reminder - Draft Outcome: Charter Questions A7 (Part 1), A9, A10
by Ariel Liang May 16, 2022

May 16, 2022

Dear all, This is a reminder for reviewing the draft outcome language for questions A7 (Part 1), A9, and A10 by EOB Friday, 20 May. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:50 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Draft Outcome: Charter Questions A7 (Part 1), A9, A10 Dear All Please find the draft outcome language for charter questions A7 (Part 1), A9, and A10 on this google doc, pp.12-16: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… (it is also posted on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XwyHCg) Following the agreed format, the draft outcome language includes the following components: * Brief answer to the charter question * Recommendations and implementation guidance * Rationale for recommendations and implementation guidance Please note that for charter question A7, Part 2 (related to the allowable characters for single-character TLDs) has not be addressed; it depends on input from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Generation Panels. Please provide any input/suggestion for the draft outcome language on the mailing list by Friday, 20 May. Any substantive comments will be discussed during the EPDP Team meeting in about two weeks. Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 12 May 2022
by Devan Reed May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 12 May 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/dgB1Cw> (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

Notes - IDNs EPDP Meeting #35 - 12 May 2022
by Steve Chan May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes from today’s meeting on Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Best, Ariel, Emily, and Steve Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 12 May 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates * For the String Similarity small group, reminder to complete Doodle poll so we can schedule the meeting soon. * A7 Part 1, A9, A10 – please review. Deadline for input is 20 May. * For outreach to CJK GPs for single character TLDs in Han, the Chinese and Japanese GPs have replied. Waiting on Korean GP so that replies can be consolidated and reviewed at once. * Note that E2 will also necessarily include discussion of E1, part 2. Continue discussion of charter question E2 * Slide 6 - Reminder of background/context on objections * Slide 7 - Reminder of staff paper recommendations and discussion points * Questions – Must all requested allocatable variant TLD labels be subject to the objection processes? * Note: preliminary conclusion for this EPDP Team is that there is a single application, with requested variants included. * Should the allocatable variant labels NOT requested by applicants be subject to the objection process? * Confirmed – the basis, ground, of objections are not to be touched. Only considering impact of variant labels (requested allocatable and not requested allocatable). This question seems similar to what is being discussed for String Sim (e.g., 3 levels). For the second question, it would seem to be the same answer as for String Sim, whatever that ends up being? Perhaps this should be added to the small team’s remit. * For question 1 – once a variant is delegated, it is treated as any other domain name in the DNS, from a technical perspective. As such, it seems that requested variants should be subject to the same rigor. * Reminder – objections take place after Initial Eval (including String Sim). * Some agreement at a principle level. A blocked variant could be identical to a string that a potential future applicant may be interested. This is an argument for allowing blocked variants to be included in objections. * Depending upon which gTLD is applied for as the primary, it may impact whether the variants are allocatable or blocked. The following example was shared: 滙豐 -- special HSBC 匯豐 -- Traditional Chinese 汇丰 -- Simplified Chinese If an applicant applies for TC or SC, the special HSBC one would be blocked and not allocatable. * As an example, if an applicant applied for the traditional Chinese version, if the blocked label is not also included for objection, HSBC may not be able to object to the special HSBC? * Question about whether legal rights objection allows for non-exact match, to see if the blocked label could still be objected against, even if it is not an exact match. * Suggestion to write up the example for consideration representative groups. Action Item: Write up the example in a clear manner (Note: Edmon provided an example in the chat). If Applied for: 滙豐 HSBC IDN Variants: 匯豐 TC(allocatable) + 汇丰 SC(allocatable) If Applied for: 匯豐 TC IDN Variants: 滙豐 HSBC(blocked) + 汇丰 SC(allocatable) If Applied for: 汇丰SC IDN Variants: 滙豐 HSBC(blocked) + 匯豐 (allocatable) * Response to question about objections: when based on TM rights or for IGOs, identical or similar, to phonetic, appearance, sound, meaning, etc. See section 3.5.2 of the AGB. This is important to take into consideration in understanding implications. * Will consider again whether the String Sim small team should further consider. * Preliminary conclusion: question 1 is yes and question 2 requires more analysis, and possible inclusion with the small team’s work. Introduction to charter question D2 * Slide 9 – Overview of charter question. Note - Question has an implicit dependency on with D1a – preliminary conclusion for that question was that a primary label and variants should be subject to a single Registry Agreement. * Slide 10 – Overview of Registry Transition Process, the various types, and how they can be triggered. * Slide 11 – Overview of expectations for Type 1 & Type 2 Registry Transition Process. * Question about whether D2 should also be applicable to allocatable (i.e., not assigned/delegated). If not delegated, there would be no contractual obligations and nothing to transition. * Assumption is that after a change of control, the new RO would be the only party able to apply for non-delegated, allocatable variants. The same-entity principle would seem to apply. There may be some operational consideration whether a list is actually maintained. * Question about EBERO – can the original operator maintain control? Answer provided in slides later – if the problems are resolved, then there is no change of control. * EBERO process can be used for cases where a gTLD is purposefully removed from the root. A RO may only want to remove a single variant and that should not necessarily impact the other variants in the set. * Slide 12, 13 – Overview of EBERO * Question – what happens if variants are applied for outside of rounds? Staff paper recommends against this. * For EBERO, the TLD moves to the EBERO provider (e.g., CIRA, CNNIC, etc.), if only a part of the set is moved, then the variants could be operated by a different entity. * To this point, need to consider what happens when a variant is intentionally removed. It should not force actions to be taken against the strings that are intended to be maintained. * The treatment of the variant set could be different based on what triggers EBERO (e.g., failure versus intentional retirement). Action Item – examine what happens for intentional and planned retirement under EBERO, as opposed to emergency action. * Slide 14 – Overview of TM-PDDRP. Important aspect is one specific remedy: termination of RA. * Slide 15 – Overview of SubPro context, Staff Paper context, and questions for discussion. * Suggestion – 3 considerations, understand process for addition, removal, transition of variants. And for clarity, the triggering event will be important. * ccTLD situation is different. If a government no longer supports a language, there are different implications. gTLDs would not be subject to such limitations. AOB * Reminder: review A7 Part 1, A9, A10 – please review. Deadline for input is 20 May. Steven Chan  Senior Director, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)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=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> 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_grou…>

1 0

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 19 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/gAB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yx64cb4j 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, 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 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/dgB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/37z7vymj [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/37z7vymj__;!!PtGJab4!tUWUUdR…> 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

15 MINUTES **REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 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/dgB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/37z7vymj [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/37z7vymj__;!!PtGJab4!tUWUUdR…> 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

FW: Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 11, 2022

May 11, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 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/dgB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/37z7vymj [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/37z7vymj__;!!PtGJab4!tUWUUdR…> 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 #35 - Thursday 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas May 10, 2022

May 10, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 12 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #35 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 mins) 3. Continue discussion of charter question E2 (40 mins) 4. Introduction to charter question D2 (40 mins) 5. AOB (3 mins)

1 0

Notes - IDNs EPDP Meeting #34 - 5 May 2022
by Emily Barabas May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes from today’s meeting on Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 5 May 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates * SSAC has issued SAC 120. A copy was forwarded to the EPDP mailing list. The document reiterates points raised in the last meeting between SSAC members and EPDP. EPDP Team will consider whether another call should be scheduled with members of SSAC. * Outreach letter to CJK GPs has gone out. Leadership team will provide updates once responses have been received. * Draft text for A7 part 1, A9, and A10 will be circulated soon with two weeks for members to provide suggested amendments. If members submit substantive comments, these will be discussed on a future call. * As a reminder, the leadership team is seeking volunteers for a small team to look at string similarity issues. Please respond by tomorrow if interested. Continue discussion of charter question e5, including review of data collected by ICANN org * Slide 4 – background on Charter E5 and context * Slide 5 – recap: reserved names * Analysis of reserved names and 11 test labels – the org team ran labels through the RZ-LGR to identify variant labels. The first tab provides a summary, Column C shows the total number of variants. D, E, and F provide breakdown of allocatable, blocked and variant labels. In the subsequent tabs you can see the list of variants for each. * Comment: The mechanism generates a lot of potential strings that might not ultimately be useful for anyone or used. Suggestion to list strings that are disallowed by policy in a separate category in the spreadsheet (for example those that use a mix of different scripts). * Comment: If we are thinking about variants to the reserved names list, the variants list should only include those that could actually be applied for. A string including a mix of scripts would not be included, for example. Maybe that list would be smaller. If there is going to be a visual similarity test anyway, the question is which strings do we really need to add, since it’s going to be handled in the string similarity review anyway? * Staff comment: If variants of Reserved Strings are also considered as Reserved Strings, this would mean that they would be included in the string similarity review. The implication is that every applied-for string is compared against a much larger pool of reserved names. * Comment: If there are variants of a reserved name that would not be captured in the string similarity review, those are the ones we should focus on and potentially add to the reserved names list. * Comment: It is unclear where the problem is. If this is going to come up in the string similarity process, why do we have to worry about adding it to the reserved name list? * Comment: If we simply say in the AGB that all reserved names and variants are reserved rather than listing each of the variants, we would end up in the same place. People can use the RZ-LGR to generate the variants check. Or we allow the string similarity review to take care of it. Either way we go about it, we end up with the same outcome. * Comment: If the algorithm can be modified to focus only on variants that are composed of a single script, that would bring the number of variants in question down significantly. * Question: Is it possible to identify an example of a string that is a variant that would not be considered visually similar? This could be used to look at a scenario where a one string looks like a variant of a reserved name. * Example: ssac vs. ßac are variants. If BAC and ßac are visually similar, should it be possible to apply for BAC? From one perspective, it should be possible. * Comment: One issue is variants the other is string similarity. Both can occur for applied for strings as well as for reserved names and other strings that cannot be applied for. The Staff report suggested a coherent analysis looking at all the possible TLD strings across all categories rather than offering one approach for an applied for string and different rules for reserved names. * Comment: We shouldn’t block BAC just because ßac is a variant of ssac. All blocked labels plus variants should be blocked but string similarity should analysis should only be done with those on the block list and not variants of those on the block list. * Comment: This should apply not only to reserved names, but also to existing and applied for strings. In the next round, if someone applies for a string, the string similarity review should only be done on those strings that were delegated and not the variants were not delegated. The string similarity review that is done on reserved names is the same as on existing TLDs and other applications. The implications are different but the test is the same. * Staff comment: For scripts like Arabic, that may have a different perspective as well. * Staff note: Looking again at the charter question: Should the list of reserved names be updated to include variants of reserved names, so that those would also be taken into account in the string similarity review? * Question: Is it correct that the group is converging on the idea that a variant label of a reserved name is a different category from a reserved name and that those variants do not need to be added to the list of reserved names, they just need to be blocked? * Comment: They shouldn’t be added. The reserved strings are reserved for a purpose. If an application comes up that looks like the reserved name, this will be addressed in the string similarity review. If there is a variant that looks different from the reserved name, it should not be taken into account in the string similarity review. Adding to the reserved names list should not be taken lightly. A lot of thought went into making this list. The trend over time has been to limit the reserved names. * Comment: In case there is any possibility of re-evaluation of the blocked string or variant it should be included. If there is no possibility of reversing the status of a blocked variant, it should not be included. * Comment: We should leave the list as it is and state that all variants of those labels will be automatically blocked. ßac (variant of ssac) should be blocked even if it would not have been caught in the string similarity review because it is not visually similar. There may be old browsers that might format the string ßac into ssac which may cause a real problem. * General support expressed for the idea that the reserved name list should not be updated. Variants of reserved names will be blocked but will not be taken into account in the string similarity review. * Slide 6 & 7 – Strings ineligible for delegation * Comment: Don’t extend the list via this group. The policy has a process to extend the list. To extent there is an interest from those groups to extend the list, they can follow the specified process. * Comment: We are not extending the protection, we are upholding the variant process. We need to have a consistent way to apply variants across all strings so it’s clear for everyone. We should focus less on the numbers of protected strings and focus more on whether we are approaching this issue in a principled manner. * Comment: One of the fundamental principles is that a label and its variants are allocated to the same entity. If this is not extended there is a possibility that a variant is allocated to an entity that is different from the IGO or INGO, which breaks that principle, which is a significant change. * Comment: We are not adding to the list if we include variants. We are protecting labels already on the list. Variants are considered “the same.” Therefore, all variants of the labels on the list must be blocked too, otherwise a different party from the IGOs can register a variant and take the original label away from that organization. * Comment: Names that are ineligible for delegation are not reserved for the organization. If ineligible for delegation, it’s ineligible for all. We should not modify work that took years to complete. Before we go any further on this topic, Council should weigh in on whether this is in scope for the EPDP. * Comment: To avoid long lists, we should take as a principle that lists contain the “originals” and then link to a resource for calculating variants. Begin review of charter questions e2 and e1, part 2 * Slide 9 – Charter questions E2 & E1 (part 2) * Slide 10 – Objections – Applications Process Flow Chart * Slide 11 – Objection process in the 2012 round * Slide 12 – Discussion scope and questions, as well as staff paper context

1 0

Draft Outcome: Charter Questions A7 (Part 1), A9, A10
by Ariel Liang May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Dear All Please find the draft outcome language for charter questions A7 (Part 1), A9, and A10 on this google doc, pp.12-16: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… (it is also posted on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XwyHCg) Following the agreed format, the draft outcome language includes the following components: * Brief answer to the charter question * Recommendations and implementation guidance * Rationale for recommendations and implementation guidance Please note that for charter question A7, Part 2 (related to the allowable characters for single-character TLDs) has not be addressed; it depends on input from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Generation Panels. Please provide any input/suggestion for the draft outcome language on the mailing list by Friday, 20 May. Any substantive comments will be discussed during the EPDP Team meeting in about two weeks. Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0