March 2023 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meetings at ICANN76 - 11 March 2023
by Steve Chan 13 Mar '23

13 Mar '23

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from Saturday’s meetings on 11 March 2023. Apologies for the delayed distribution. Best, Ariel, Emily, and Steve Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 11 March 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Add Implementation Guidance or rationale to reflect that: some additional fees specific to IDN variants may be needed, beyond the application fee. Action Item 2: Draft language to capture outcome of single fee for both registry-level and transaction fees. Action item 3: Clarify language to specify between challenge to RZ-LGR versus the SubPro challenge mechanism. Specify three scenarios. Action item 4: Draft the latter part of Rec 1.2 more like a recommendation (or consider moving to rationale). Action item 5: Include the primary and disposition values as challengeable via the SubPro challenge mechanism. Action item 6: Investigate what a “reasonable” number of variant strings is for various scripts, based on learnings from the GPs. Roll Call and SOI Updates * None Welcome and Chair Updates * Background on this EPDP * Review of timeline to Phase 1 Initial Report. Noting need for drafting of glossary and review of text. Close Loop - D1b - flat application fee & registry level fee (fixed fee & transaction fee) * Slide 5 - Context of question * Slide 6 - New draft recommendation as a result of the previous call, related only to the application fee. * Language probably needs additional work, but the principle is that the primary string, plus any number of variants, should be subject to a single base application fee. * As a result of the hybrid model, the number of permutations will be quite high. Unclear if those costs would be borne by all applicants or just by the affected applicants. * May want to note that some additional fees specific to IDN variants may be needed, beyond the application fee. Action Item: Add Implementation Guidance or rationale to reflect that: some additional fees specific to IDN variants may be needed, beyond the application fee. * Reminder that we’re only talking about the application fee, and as well, that we need to consider existing gTLDs and how they apply for their variants. * Noted that this model is helpful in promoting the adoption of IDNs. * Reminder that variants are determined by the RZ-LGR. * As a principle, the primary string and all variants should be treated the same. * Noted that reviewing additional strings (variants), there is likely to be extra cost. The result of this recommendation is that those additional costs are borne by all applicants. * There are other examples of all applications that have different evaluation elements being subject to the same fee. ASCII and IDN applications, which have IDN tables, would have the same fee in 2012. Geo names are also part of the base application fee. * ASCII domains will have variants as well, so this is not just specific to IDNs. * Slide 7 - Reviewing RA language about registry-level fees, which is about the fixed fee and the transaction fee. * Slide 8 - Recommendations are in line with the integrity of the set. Because the primary gTLD and variant labels are recommended to be subject to a single agreement, should the registry-level fixed fee only be levied once or per delegated gTLDs? * There is also a technical level to consider. There are more zones set up and entries in the zone. Managing the set at a technical level, there is no fixed implementation that all registries will follow. * There might be a preference to just worry about the administrative level. * Clarification that for the technical level, this is more about the EPP side and the domain create, renewal, transfer. So, based on transactions. The DNS side is up to the RO to manage. * Support for single fee, based at least in part because of the principle of the set. The registry-level fee is already substantial and adding additional annual fees may further dampen interest. * Registry-level transaction fees should also be subject to a single fee. Action Item: Draft language to capture outcome of single fee for both registry-level and transaction fees. * Question about fees for names registered in each variant. This sounds like a second-level question? * Clarification question about what constitutes 50,000. Does each registration count, including variants, as a transaction? Some belief that the transactions would be based on the set. By way of example, 25,000 transactions under the primary gTLD and 25,000 transactions under variant 1, would total 50,000 transactions. * Not clear if there will be a new EPP command to create a set. Second Reading of Draft Text Circulated Prior to ICANN76 E3 (added variant labels to Reserved Names): https://docs.google.com/document/d/115eSNnxBsCbUszEGU7i4xbzLwu1u8_UdaGEJD9C… * Reviewing text in Google doc. Approach is to ask the commenters to explain and seek to resolve comments. * Question about the consistency of language and the model, in respect of blocked labels. There seems to be a gap/inconsistency for just Reserved Names. This was addressed in drafting the language. * Concern about the limitation of two-character strings. This limitation comes from the 2012 AGB and is affirmed by SubPro. It seems out of scope for this team to modify. However, is it not possible that a 1-char or 3-char string would be similar to a 2-char ASCII (which are reserved for potential ccTLDs)? This language therefore seems limiting. * Could use additional clarity around what “manifestly low level of visual confusability” * Is there also an exception for mixed script? Answer is no. Glossary will note that only valid labels will be included in the blocked variants list, except where there might be some exceptions. Implementation guidance may be useful. * Intent is to give discretion to the expert panelists. * Noted that allocatable variant labels for reserved names would be included in the string similarity review. * Table added to help provide a visual representation of the comparable combinations. If we want to include it, need to update it for accuracy. A8, B4a, E1, E2, E3a, E4, E7/B5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iXaAy3uDyoVlZ4L9jYiY_8bzqpZR7I1xa9qUWen… * General agreement for text to be included in the Initial Report. A3 (added recs & rationale), A5, A7, A9, B4, B5, D1a, D1b, D8 (added rationale), E5 (revised rationale) Topic A: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… * There is a suggestion that the outcome of the challenge process would determine next steps. This bullet is specific to the RZ-LGR review process (outside of the SubPro challenge mechanism). * These sets of recommendations include both elements (applying even lacking RZ-LGR and when the RZ-LGR itself is being challenged). * There may be a third instance where the tool itself is improperly implemented. * Clarified that SubPro already has a recommendation about applying for a gTLD in a script that is not already a part of the RZ-LGR. * It seems that only the instance where an applicant is challenging the implementation of the RZ-LGR is relevant to this EPDP. However, can include the language about the challenge outside of the SubPro process (e.g., via the GPs). Action item: Clarify language to specify between challenge to RZ-LGR versus the SubPro challenge mechanism. Specify three scenarios. * Suggestion that the language in Rec 1.2 looks like rationale. Since this is the recommendation, there is opportunity to draft it more like a recommendation. Action item: Draft the latter part of Rec 1.2 more like a recommendation (or consider moving to rationale). * Rationale for Rec 1.17 has a question about validity of strings. There is a further question about the ability to challenge whether a variant string is blocked when they think it should be allocatable. Currently, the recommendation seems to only apply to the primary string. Action item: Include the primary and disposition values as challengeable via the SubPro challenge mechanism. * Rec 1.4 - agreement on clarifying language. Concern about this creating the perception that there is a ceiling value for variants. * Rationale for Rec 1.5 - Concern about user experience versus what may be more appropriate, the registrant experience. * Could specify that the user experience is outside of the control of registries and registrars. And thus, could specify that the framework is limited to best practices for registries and registrars deploying variants. * Clarification that for SSAC, the concern was about the registry managing too many variants, which would impact the registry, registrar, and registrant. * Re: Rec 1.5, understanding is that it was drafted in response to not impose a ceiling value for variants. This set of recommendations was drafted prior to the agreement by the WG to set a single base fee for the primary gTLD and all variants. Does this warrant revisiting Rec 1.4? Noted that applicants must explain need for variants. * The other significant factor is that only 7 scripts allow for allocatable variants and only Arabic has a high number of permutations. Chinese may also have a higher number of allocatable variants. * Suggestion that Rec 1.5 does not seem to connect to Rec 1.4. Would this mean that the framework is needed prior to the launch of the next round? Presumably the framework that is needed is to help potential applicants understand what is needed to manage variants. * Could make sense to separate between registry/registrar level considerations and then a more holistic set of guidance for variants (for registry, registrar, registrants). * Should highlight the elements that might limit uncontrolled applications for variants, considering the switch to a single application fee. * Could there be limitations on the single fee provision? Challenge is of course in determining what that arbitrary number might be. * The “arbitrary” number can be informed by the limits that the GPs imposed, so it will not be quite so arbitrary. Action item: Investigate what a “reasonable” number of variant strings is for various scripts, based on learnings from the GPs. Topic B: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3… * N/A Topic D: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… * N/A Topic E: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLvsyQvliafNEA9Ja1RCObywpAWfp1kTmte0WZl… * N/A Consolidated View of All Draft Phase 1 Recommendations: [Draft] Consolidated View of Draft Phase 1 Recommendations.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/231374910/%5BDraft%5D%20Co…> * N/A AOB * N/A 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

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Sessions - ICANN76
by Ariel Liang 09 Mar '23

09 Mar '23

Hello all, In preparation for the discussion of item 5 on the agenda, staff have developed a draft table that provides a consolidated view of the draft Phase 1 recommendations the EPDP Team has developed so far. The sequence of the recommendations is roughly based on the process flow of the New gTLD Program. The EPDP Team developed those recommendations to augment various stages/steps of the New gTLD Program on the basis of the overarching principles summarized in column E and explained on page 3 of the document. Please note the following: * The charter questions (column A) and recommendation text (column D) are the summarized version for brevity purposes (also as the EPDP Team is still refining the final wording for many recommendations) * The placement of some recommendations may not precisely fit into the New gTLD Program process flow, and it is due to the charter questions that served as the origin of those recommendations (e.g., recs under B4). * The underlying principles (column E) may not be precise for all the recommendations, and welcome EPDP Team’s input. * Column C is intentionally left blank as we need EPDP Team’s input on the sequence and reorganization of the recommendations before developing new numbers. Thank you for your review! Ariel From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 3:05 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Sessions - ICANN76 Dear all, As a reminder the IDN EPDP Team will have two working sessions at ICANN76 on Saturday 11 March: * Session 1: 9:00 - 10:00 EST<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Session+1+ID…> * Session 2: 10:30 - 12:00 EST<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Session+2+ID…> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. Close Loop: * D1b - flat application fee & registry level fee (fixed fee & transaction fee) 4. Second Reading of Draft Text Circulated Prior to ICANN76 * E3 (added variant labels to Reserved Names) * A8, B4a, E1, E2, E3a, E4, E7/B5 * A3 (added recs & rationale), A5, A7, A9, B4, B5, D1a, D1b, D8 (added rationale), E5 (revised rationale) 5. Consolidated View of All Draft Phase 1 Recommendations 6. AOB We look forward to your participation! Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

3 2

Draft Output: A3, D8, E5, E3
by Ariel Liang 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear All, Please find the redlined draft text that was revised as a result of the discussion of last week’s meeting to close loops on recommendations that may have potential gaps. For the ease of your review, the revised redlined text are highlighted in yellow in the following documents: * A3, Rec 1.7, pp.3-5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… * D8, Rationale for Rec 2.16-2.18, p.15: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… * E5, Rationale for Rec 3.2-3.3, p.5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLvsyQvliafNEA9Ja1RCObywpAWfp1kTmte0WZl… * E3, added variant labels to Reserved Names, pp.2, 5 & 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/115eSNnxBsCbUszEGU7i4xbzLwu1u8_UdaGEJD9C… === As a reminder, the previous batches of draft text circulated previously include the following: Batch 1: E3 (String Similarity Review) https://docs.google.com/document/d/115eSNnxBsCbUszEGU7i4xbzLwu1u8_UdaGEJD9C… Batch 2: E3a, E4, E2, B4a, E1, B5, E7, and A8: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iXaAy3uDyoVlZ4L9jYiY_8bzqpZR7I1xa9qUWen… Batch 3: Draft text revised as a result of the review of ICANN org’s substantive input Topic A: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… · A5, Rec 1.5 and IG 1.6, pp.6-8 · A9, IG 1.15, pp.15-16 Topic B: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3… · B2, Rec 2.2, p.2 · B5, Rec 2.8, pp.5-6 Topic D: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… · D1a, Rec 2.4, IG 2.15, Rec 2.22, IG 2.23, pp.1-3 · D1b, Rec 2.6, IG 2.19, IG 2.20, IG 2.21, pp.4-6 · Note: Discussion of IG 2.xx is tabled, pending ALAC team’s input · D8, Rec 2.16, Rec 2.17, Rec 2.18, pp.13-14 You may notice some additional redlines on these draft documents that were not specifically called out. Those redlines intend to incorporate the editorial / non-substantive input from ICANN org, which the EPDP Team already discussed and agreed to let staff proceed with revisions. You are not required to review those redlines right now and they can be reviewed when the draft Initial Report is circulated. Please be so kind to complete your review of all these batches of draft text before ICANN76. The second reading and discussion of your input (if any) is expected to take place during ICANN76 EPDP-IDNs working sessions on Saturday, 11 March. Thank you for your review! Best Regards, Ariel, Steve, Emily

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Sessions - ICANN76
by Emily Barabas 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear all, As a reminder the IDN EPDP Team will have two working sessions at ICANN76 on Saturday 11 March: * Session 1: 9:00 - 10:00 EST<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Session+1+ID…> * Session 2: 10:30 - 12:00 EST<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Session+2+ID…> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. Close Loop: * D1b - flat application fee & registry level fee (fixed fee & transaction fee) 4. Second Reading of Draft Text Circulated Prior to ICANN76 * E3 (added variant labels to Reserved Names) * A8, B4a, E1, E2, E3a, E4, E7/B5 * A3 (added recs & rationale), A5, A7, A9, B4, B5, D1a, D1b, D8 (added rationale), E5 (revised rationale) 5. Consolidated View of All Draft Phase 1 Recommendations 6. AOB We look forward to your participation! Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

2 1

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #72 - 02 March 2023
by Steve Chan 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Emily, and Steve Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 02 March 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Include definition for Reserved Names in glossary. Action Item 2: Request input on questions in slides 10 and 11. Action Item 3: Nevertheless, prepare draft recommendation language to help understanding. Action Item 4: Members to provide opinions on options for close date on list. Welcome and Chair Updates * Last call before ICANN76. Please take note that this group’s sessions are first up on Saturday, and there are two of them. * Hopeful there is good turnout for the sessions, particularly in person (Michael, Satish, Dennis note they will be in person; Maxim, Zuan, Jerry will be remote). Planning to take a team photo if possible. * Slide 3: Reminder about text circulated for team review: * Items 1-3 are currently out for review. Input needed to develop Initial Report. * Editorial edits stemming from ICANN org input in progress. * Expectation is that substantive input stemming from member review of draft text will be form basis for ICANN76 session. Review of text is therefore imperative. Discuss Draft Recommendations with Potential Gaps * Slide 5: Discussing remaining fee elements which includes both the application fee and annual registration fees. Current rec 2.7 says that applications for variant label(s) should be subject to cost recovery. * Suggestion from leadership to include a new rec that relies on a single flat application fee, no matter how many variants. The rationale is that IDNs and variants are a priority for ICANN and the community. Could otherwise be a barrier to variants. * And the RO would only be subject to a single registry-level fee, same as a single gTLD RO. * This group is not intending to set the fees specifically but rather, the principles that a gTLD operator and its two variants for example, should not be charged the registry-level fees three times. * Re: the cost recovery principle, it was for the overall New gTLD Program collectively, not specific to each application. An ASCII gTLD application and an IDN gTLD application, or one that provided hundreds of IDN tables, would be subject to the same application fee. The RySG will consider this topic soon. * A clarification that this concept would seem to only apply when the primary gTLD and variants are applied for in a single round. Assumption that there would be a fee if an existing RO applies for just a variant. * Concerns that setting pricing would be against anti-monopoly laws in many countries. * Concern that suggested Rec 2.24 would create an unfair advantage for the RO with variants (in respect of the annual fees). * Noted that there is a draft recommendation that there is no ceiling for applying for variants. That recommendation is in part reliant on there being financial hurdles for additional variants, which would cause a RO to think carefully before applying for more variants than they might need. * Does the RO’s business model matter? If the registrant automatically get the variants, should each variant domain count against transaction fees? It may help to remember that variants are considered the “same”. * In new gTLD process in 2012, each application was for a single gTLD. Some support for draft Rec 2.24. For transaction fees, registrars may have to pay for variant second-level domains. Preference to have transaction fees based one a single domain name, with no additional fees for variants for registries or registrars. * This sort of pricing structure would be consistent with the concept of a set. * Concern raised in draft Rec 2.24 about the reference to a single RA. Belief that this is not decided yet by group. * Noted that Rec 2.24 makes sense in the context of “tight bundling” of sets, where the domains behave the same. The SubPro recommendation (25.8) notes that domains do not need to act or behave the same b/c each domain is an independent registration (technically). This implies that the bundling is “loose” as there is a good deal of flexibility available to contracted parties. * Suggestion that the EPDP might see this differently from SubPro, at least in respect of the fees aspect. * The context of SubPro’s rec is to allow flexibility for the registrant. The “tight bunding” concept is required at the CP level however. * For annual fees, suggestion that transactions are triggered by domain create. * Appears that there is agreement on the concept that the set should drive application fees (i.e., a single application fee). However, not agreement yet on the registry-level fees. * Suggestion to charge a delegation fee for variants. * Noted that nearly all ROs are subject to a uniform agreement. Concern that the concept of a single agreement may be problematic for existing ROs requesting a variant. A specification would make things easier. * Will need to revisit this topic before the Initial Report is completed. * Slide 7: Org question whether a gTLD can be applied for that is visually similar to a Reserved Name. * Input from Dennis that the rationale argues against the hybrid model. This would seem inconsistent. * Suggestion that the same rules should apply for consistency. * Noted that this rationale was developed before the hybrid model was agreed to, which is why we might need to revisit this language for consistency. * Currently, the hybrid model only compares against the Reserved Names list, not the variants. If changing the approach for Reserved Names, might need to adjust hybrid model. * Could potentially only include test and example, since there would be IDNs here. * Suggestion that there is a difference between ICANN-imposed reserved names versus the RO’s reserved names. However, we are talking about the top-level here. Need to be clear which list we are talking about. * We will need to come back to this question. Action Item: Include definition for Reserved Names in glossary. * Slide 8: Proposed new recommendations. * Proposal is to rely on “remove from the root zone” rather than revoked or un-delegated. Request that org evaluate whether this terminology is acceptable and addressed concerns. * May need implementation guidance to note that breach of RA doesn’t always result in removal from the root zone, it could be that EBERO is invoked. * Slide 9: Org input on “Revoked”. Revoked is a more precise term. Un-delegated could include a gTLD that is never delegated. * Slide 10: The question is about an ongoing RZ-LGR review. It was noted that this potential outcome could be dependent upon a4. * A4 notes that for existing gTLDs, all scripts are already integrated into RZ-LGR. * Not clear there is a dependency between a4 conclusion and this open item. * Clarifying question about what is being challenged: the outcome or the RZ-LGR? It is limited to challenging the algorithmic check. * It seems that the preliminary outputs may be sufficient. Action Item: Request input on questions in slides 10 and 11. Action Item: Nevertheless, prepare draft recommendation language to help understanding. Phase 1 Initial Report: Proposed Structure * Slide 13: Reviewing format of the Initial Report, which looks like the standard format for most other reports. * Section 3: Glossary is not always a standard inclusion. * Annex A for the hybrid model is also not a standard inclusion. * Clarification that the background section should be summary level and brief. * Section 4 will be the core of the report. Public Comment Timeline * Slide 15: Reviewing remaining time to get to Initial Report. * At ICANN76 will hold second reading and full view of all draft recs. * May cancel 23 March meeting based on travel back home. Aim is to complete P1 Initial Report draft on 24 March. * Support for keeping 23 March. * Discuss report on 30 March meeting (other than the draft recommendations, which have been subject to discussion for the past meetings). * Target date for public comment is 17 April with publish date on 24 April. * Therefore, aiming for agreement from EPDP Team for Initial Report on 7 April. * If a guided submission form is needed, 4 business days required to build. * The guided submission form helps with facilitating the public comment collection and review. * General support for guided submission form. * The closing date is important in respect of ICANN77. Option 1, a 5 June close date would occur just before ICANN77 (12-15 June). If after ICANN77, it could be Option 2, 26 June. * Could focus on Phase 2 questions instead during ICANN77. However, preference again is that the public comment input be reviewed. * Chair preference is Option 1. Because recommendations have been developed iteratively, they should not be a surprise to participating community groups. Hopefully this allows for the 42 calendar day period. * May need to extend time or schedule another meeting to gain agreement for publishing Initial Report. Action Item: Members to provide opinions on options for close date on list. AOB * None 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

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 02 March 2023
by Devan Reed 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 02 March 2023 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cJE-DQ> (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

ON NOW | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/cJE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc676yju <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc676yju__;!!PtGJab4!4kAnlOq…> 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

Updated invitation: IDNs EPDP Team meeting @ Weekly from 16:00 to 18:00 on Thursday from Thu 5 Jan to Fri 3 Mar (MSK) (gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org)
by m.alzoba＠gmail.com 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

This event has been updated Changed: Time IDNs EPDP Team meeting Weekly from 16:00 to 18:00 on Thursday from Thursday 5 Jan to Friday 3 Mar Moscow Standard Time - Moscow Location 13:00 UTC | https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 https://www.google.com/maps/search/13:00+UTC+%7C+https:%2F%2Ficann.zoom.us%… Meeting: IDNs EPDP Team meeting Pattern: Weekly on Thursday’s 05 January 2023 – 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 2 hours Please click the link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 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 If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom 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 only Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior Visit the agenda wiki page (05 January): https://community.icann.org/x/X5E-DQ For other places see (05 January): https://tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk 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. Organiser m.alzoba(a)gmail.com m.alzoba(a)gmail.com Guests m.alzoba(a)gmail.com- organiser Steve Chan Devan Reed Emily Barabas Ariel Liang Michelle DeSmyter Julie Bisland Nathalie Peregrine Terri Agnew Board Calendaring gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org View all guest info https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=XzZvcjNpZGhvNjRv… Reply for gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org and view more details https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=XzZvcjNpZGhvNjRv… Your attendance is optional. ~~//~~ Invitation from Google Calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this email because you are an attendee of the event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organiser, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status or modify your RSVP. Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

1 0

15 MINUTE REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/cJE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc676yju <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc676yju__;!!PtGJab4!4kAnlOq…> 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 #72 - Thursday 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 2 hours
by Ariel Liang 02 Mar '23

02 Mar '23

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday, 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC (2 hour call). In addition, please find attached the ICANN org response regarding the term “revoked”, which was discussed in the context of treatment of delegated variant labels of a primary IDN gTLD that is removed from the rootzone. See more details in draft text under D8 on pp.13-14: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU…. This ICANN org input will be discussed tomorrow under agenda item 3. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #72 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 mins) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Discuss Draft Recommendations with Potential Gaps (70 mins) 4. Phase 1 Initial Report: Proposed Structure (10 mins) 5. Public Comment Timeline (30 mins) 6. AOB (3 mins)

2 1