July 2023 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #87 - 13 July 2023
by Steve Chan July 14, 2023

July 14, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Emily, and Steve Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 13 July 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Reformulate IG 3.8. Consider removing “standards” to reflect “criteria and tests” or “widely accepted practices”. Add public comment/consultation component. Change “may” to “should”. Action Item 2: In respect of Rec 3.16, define “established practices”, potentially in the glossary. Action Item 3: Update references to Reserved Names for Recs 3.18 and 3.19. Notes Roll Call and SOI Updates * None Welcome and Chair Updates * Survey results – shared with this group and with Council leadership. If any requests received, will be shared with full Council. No concerning results, but good to have a checkpoint at this stage of the work. * Face-to-face timeline – Based on survey results, 6-8 (Wed-Fri) of December. Still awaiting confirmation on location. Maybe more likely to have 2.5 days. * 20 July Council meeting – provide update on this EPDP Team’s timeline. In summary, no change to Phase 1, but move Phase 2 tentative delivery to October 2024. Continue reviewing Phase 1 Initial Report public comments, starting at recommendation 3.8 * Tab for Implementation Guidance 3.8: only support received. * Tab for Implementation Guidance 3.9: Note, added charter question to help evaluate public comment received. Suggested wording changes from RySG and ALAC. Suggested categorization for CCWP-HR – concerns about research and implications of the research. The rationale for this recommendation suggests that the research will not directly impact outcomes. Suggestion is also for ICANN org to communicate to the ICANN community clearly defined timeframes, processes, and opportunities for public input before engaging in any research activities under this Implementation Guidance. * Expanding on the RySG comment: it is early days for variants. In the gTLD world, limited to NGO/ONG being marketed as a technical bundle. Not variants of course, but similar conceptually since they were marketed as the same. Understanding is that they stopped this practice given the difficulties. Research is therefore very much warranted to better understand the practice. * Expanding upon the ALAC comment: if standards are established, it should be a “should”. If it is widely accepted practices, it is less strong. * In general, standards (e.g., IETF), are the result of consensus among technical experts. But the standards are recommended, but not required. Contracted parties regard the contracts and Consensus Policies as the elements they must comply with. Requesting clarity about standards potentially serving as a requirement. * Clarification is there is a difference in strength between standards and best practices. * Context is that we are discussing implementation guidance for Rec 3.7, which is about evaluating the capabilities of the applicant to manage the primary string and any variants. * Suggestion that for now, it may be best practices, but as more experience is gained, standards may be established in the future. This IG is forward-looking. * It seems that the word “standard” may a concern, given its meaning to contracted parties. This may be confused with standardizing the approach across registries and variants. * Question about whether the IG should be “may” versus “should”, and also about “from time to time”. * Suggestion that it may not just be relevant for the application process, but for the operations of the RO, ICANN will need to establish a process. It is a given that ICANN will have to do analysis and establish criteria for evaluation. * Concern with “may” because it sounds optional while “should” suggests a higher likelihood that the work will be completed. Support for the notion that “may” is weak. * Should the group consider the input from the CCWP-HR to introduce a public comment period, to make sure there is community input to any new criteria and tests or widely accepted practices? Adding this component would help relieve concerns about “should” versus “may”. Action Item: Reformulate IG 3.8. Consider removing “standards” to reflect “criteria and tests” or “widely accepted practices”. Add public comment/consultation component. Change “may” to “should”. * Tab for Recommendation 3.10: Support for rec as written and some support with wording changes. Similar comments about terminology from RySG which are currently being discussed by the leadership team. First part of the ICANN org comment may be misplaced? Second paragraph suggests that the rationale may be limiting as written. Staff to review and consider whether the comment is misplaced. * Tab for Recommendation 3.11: Generally support for rec as written, but some concerns from ICANN org and the BC. ICANN org relates to the permutation issues arising from large numbers of variants, as noted in SAC060. In summary, while the RZ-LGR sets limits, those limits may not be adequate. There may be reason to apply further restrictions. The inclusion of up to four variants can be seen as encouraging variants, and seemingly opposed to the concept of conservatism. BC also expresses concerns about the four variants, linking it to the ccTLD fast track. Comments are attached to both the ceiling value and fees, so does it make sense to address now or later. * Reemphasis that one of the principles of RZ-LGR is to minimize the number of allocatable variants. And even for the allocatable variants, they should be considered as a maximal set, not a minimal set. The inclusion of four variants takes away a potential constraint and turns it into a potential incentive. * Question about the specific number 4. If this is not conservative, what is conservative? A reminder that this group didn’t have a solid basis for selecting the specific number 4 and was looking for guidance from the community. The purpose of this recommendation was to encourage the uptake of variants. * The challenge for this group is balancing the goal of enabling communities to gain variants, but also taking into account conservatism. Currently there is no ceiling value (since the RZ-LGR does some of the work for the EPDP Team) and potentially incentives (e.g., 4 free variants) that may not be appropriately balanced. Suggestion is to hold further discussion on this one until we also consider comments to 8.1. * Added as well that the “need” question is informational, not scored, which is also pushing against the principle of conservatism. * Reminder that there are 5 supports as is. Leave recommendation unchanged for now. * Tab for Recommendation 3.12: Most comments support rec as written. ICANN org asks for confirmation of assumption that all applicants will help bear the costs for IDNs. As part of the EPDP Team’s deliberations, it was mentioned that cost recovery is for the program overall, not on a per-application basis. * In the rationale for 3.10, it says the following: “The EPDP Team recognized that the cost recovery principle applies to the overall New gTLD Program, and the costs of running the program would be borne by all applicants collectively.” The answer to the Org assumption is seemingly yes. At a principle level, this does not seem like a problem as applicants do not all get the same level of service/evaluation for the same base application fee. * Tab for Recommendation 3.13: Most comments support rec as written. ICANN org concerns around the word “discounted” as the actual costs of evaluating just a variant string may not be as simple as assumed. As written, the rec seems to provide discretion to Org to establish what the “discount” is. No support to amend. * Tab for Recommendation 3.14: Many comments support rec as written. ICANN org concerns are similar to Rec 3.11. May need to park the PointQuebec comment as it is connected to the overall PointQuebec concerns. The BC does not support the fee waiver and believes it may create financial concerns for ICANN. Supports a reasonable fee structure based on the cost recovery principle. * Reminder that the population of existing ROs that can apply for variants is limited and actual interest from those existing ROs may be limited. The fee waiver is in recognition of the long wait for existing ROs. * Tab for Recommendation 3.15: Many comments support rec as written. Parking the PointQuebec comment again. BC concerns about prioritizing the existing IDN ROs over even other IDNs. Reiterating logic that the existing ROs, presuming they desired variants, have not had an opportunity previously. Therefore, it makes sense to give them priority since this is the first opportunity. Do we need to seek clarity about whether the BC is talking about the immediate next round? If immediate next round, the group does not want to change. If not just the next round, then it is a misunderstanding and no change seems needed. * Tab for Recommendation 3.16: Many comments support rec as written. Parking the PointQuebec comment again. Concern from the CCWP-HR about definition of “established institution”. Noted that this language comes from the Applicant Guidebook and is therefore not suggesting any change from existing practices. May be worth defining “established institution” in glossary. Action Item: In respect of Rec 3.16, define “established practices”, potentially in the glossary. * Tab for Recommendation 3.17: All comments support rec as written. Awaiting input from GPs however. * Tab for Recommendation 3.18: Many comments support rec as written. Support for suggested change from ICANN org. * Tab for Recommendation 3.19: Many comments support rec as written. Action Item: Update references to Reserved Names for Recs 3.18 and 3.19. * Tab for Recommendation 3.20: All comments support rec as written. * Tab for Recommendation 3.21: All comments support rec as written. * Tab for Recommendation 3.22: All comments support rec as written. Noted that there are pending recommendations from SubPro that would impact this recommendation. The group may want to consider what will happen if the recommendations are not adopted. * The Board discussion on the pending recommendations related to appeal mechanisms relate to concerns about the one size fits all approach when each process may each have nuances. The Board does not have a problem conceptually with appeals, but may have concerns specific to appeals/challenges in respect of certain areas. The EPDP Team could make a recommendation/IG specific to a challenge process for variants. * Can park the issue for now awaiting resolution on the SubPro recs. Could still consider specific parameters for challenges in this area. 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, 13 July 2023
by Devan Reed July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 13 July 2023 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/uoyZDg> (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 recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Transcript * Agenda & Notes/Action Items (if applicable) 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 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 20 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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/vIyZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3v36wye3 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 | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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/uoyZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8__;!!PtGJab4!9aXp6J_…> 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, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed July 13, 2023

July 13, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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/uoyZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8__;!!PtGJab4!9aXp6J_…> 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

Results: Periodic Working Group Member Survey
by Ariel Liang July 12, 2023

July 12, 2023

Dear EPDP Team, Many thanks to the members / participants / liaisons who filled out the working group self-assessment survey. Please find the aggregated result report attached. This report is also posted on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/noHxDg This report will be shared with the GNSO Council leadership. Upon request, it will also be shared with the full GNSO Council. Again, thank you for taking the time and providing the input / feedback! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 12, 2023

July 12, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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/uoyZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4vpxbba8__;!!PtGJab4!9aXp6J_…> 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 #87 - Thursday 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Steve Chan July 11, 2023

July 11, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 13 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC (2 hour call). Best, Ariel, Emily, Steve IDN EPDP Meeting #87 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Continue reviewing Phase 1 Initial Report public comments, starting at recommendation 3.8: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13s_6L-bRx6fsII34QR-65lbqjmqFU8GH2_b… (110 min) 4. AOB (3 min) 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

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #86 - 6 July 2023
by Steve Chan July 6, 2023

July 6, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 12:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Emily, and Steve Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 6 July 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Leadership will inform Council of the comments and seek their guidance on whether or not the issue should be considered and if so, how. Action Item 2: Revise language in a manner consistent with the comments and discussion. Staff to make suggested edits to Rec 1.1. Action Item 3: Leverage RySG comment to modify Rec 2.1 and remove the asterisk language (globally). Action Item 4: Add a note in the introductory section to recommend that readers to review the glossary prior to reading recommendations. Action Item 5: Come back to Rec 3.4 during a future meeting and look at the second part of the ICANN Org comment in particular. Action Item 6: EPDP Team to review the comments received prior to the next meeting, to help facilitate further review in the coming weeks Notes Roll Call and SOI Updates * None Welcome and Chair Updates * Thanks to those that completed the midpoint WG survey. The results are intended for the Council, but seeking to share with the EPDP Team as well. * Reminder that there is also a survey for scheduling the F2F session. Start reviewing Phase 1 Initial Report public comments * Starting review with .quebec – leadership view is that they are in the scope of the charter. Unless there are objections, the intention of leadership is to inform Council and ask them for suggestions on how to approach the topic, or not. * Background: .quebec is already registered but the registry has always been interested in registering .québec. However, because this group is recommending RZ-LGR as the sole source and the Latin GP does not recognize the two strings as variants. The registry could apply for .québec but it would be highly likely to be found as confusingly similar and would not be allowed to proceed. The registry is looking for some form of an exception procedure to allow confusingly similar strings if they adhere to a same entity principle. * Nacho Amadoz helped develop the comment and it has been a longtime issue for Core. Agreement that elevating to the Council is the right approach. * One small addition: there is a possibility for exceptions in the ccTLD world and can maybe be leveraged. * No objections to reaching out to Council for guidance. Action Item: Leadership will inform Council of the comments and seek their guidance on whether or not the issue should be considered and if so, how. * Having made good progress with Phase 2, we will be starting review of Phase 1 public comments, using this review tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13s_6L-bRx6fsII34QR-65lbqjmqFU8GH2_b… * However, since there are a handful of open items, we do not want to pause all Phase 2 work for several months. * Another note is that leadership is reviewing the timeline since the IDNs EPDP is a part of the critical path for the SubPro launch. Will come back to the group before informing the Council. * Reviewing Snapshot tab: there are links to each of the recommendation tabs. There is a summary of which recommendations have significant concerns or objections raised. However, this is a combination of self-assessment from the commenter, but also an initial staff designation where the commenters did not designate. * Reviewing tab for Rec 1.1: Parking the .quebec comment for now, as noted above. Suggestions for non-substantive wording changes from ALAC, to substitute 2012 round gTLDs for ALL gTLDs. ICANN org comment also had concerns about existing gTLDs from the 2012 round. The combination of the recommendation and the asterisk are conflicting – should not be limited to just IDN gTLDs. Suggestion is therefore to not constrain to just the 2012 round and existing IDN gTLDs. * Reminder that column D and E should be completed as the EPDP Team reviews the comments. * There may also be an issue using the word “delegated” since 2012 applications may not yet be delegated. * Support from RySG. Overall global comment is to apply the RZ-LGR globally, not just carve out existing gTLDs. * Suggestion to also remove “existing” which would essentially make it a global requirement. But this may overlap with the SubPro recommendation. * Reminder for why this recommendation is so specific: “existing delegated gTLDs from the 2012 round” is to differentiate from the SubPro recommendation. Suggestion to use allocated instead of delegated. * Agreement to revise the language with specifics to be determined. * There is an asterisk to highlight the 8 recommendations that only apply to existing IDN gTLDs. The purpose of having this footnote is because only existing Arabic and Chinese gTLDs have allocatable variants. The footnote may be overly limiting since the RZ-LGR can change over time. Suggestion to remove the “footnote”. For any qualifying information, it should not be captured as a footnote – it should be incorporated into the recommendation itself. Note that the RZ-LGR identifies allocatable AND blocked, so it can be applicable to all, not just IDNs. * Question about why the asterisk language was included in the first place – because the recommendation was drafted in consideration of allocatable variants from the 2012 round. * RrSG said they support all recommendations but it is not captured in 1.1. It is only captured in the overall comments on the last tab. Action Item: Revise language in a manner consistent with the comments and discussion. Staff to make suggested edits to Rec 1.1. Action Item: Staff to replicate the RrSG for every recommendation as Support Recommendation as Written * Reviewing tab for Rec 2.1: Recommended non-substantive changes from the RySG, ALAC, and ICANN org. Suggestion to remove “IDN”, “from the 2012 round”, and “of the existing IDN gTLD” to make less limiting. This is similar to the comment to Rec 1.1. The ALAC has a specific suggestion which is generally in line with the RySG comment. ICANN org notes similar concern about the asterisk language and identifies similar concerns as RySG and ALAC. Action Item: Leverage RySG comment to modify Rec 2.1 and remove the asterisk language (globally). * Noted that ICANN org did not use the guided form. Staff has applied the comments where it believes they belong. Part of why the org did not designate its comments was because it is not appropriate for the org to “support” a recommendation. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.1: Suggestion to suggest that readers review the glossary prior to reading the recommendations. It does not make sense to add to the recommendation language itself. Perhaps it makes more sense to add to the introductory text. Action Item: Add a note in the introductory section to recommend that readers to review the glossary prior to reading recommendations. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.2: only support. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.3: likely a global change to remove “IDN” from all recommendations. Suggestion from Org is to not apply extra emphasis on the immediate next round. It seems that the recommendation language itself is already clear. * Removing “IDN” might make sense since as noted, the RZ-LGR can theoretically change that may allow Latin scripts to have allocatable variants. * Before making changes, need to carefully consider the charter question and rationale. There may be reasons that recommendations are so specific. * It MAY apply to 3.3 to adjust “IDN gTLDs from the 2012 round”. Park it for now to make sure that changes are done in a purposeful way. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.4: The second part of the ICANN org comment is substantive, asking whether adding, removing, or modifying variants should be possible during the application process. Question about string similarity – does a similar variant cause the entire set to be placed in a contention set (against another applied-for gTLD) or knocked out (existing gTLD)? The hybrid model says that string similarity for allocatable strings can result in string contention or a string being knocked out. * The ICANN org comment does not sound like it is limited to just considering the cases of string contention. It does make reference to SubPro Rec 20.8 which just applies to .Brand strings. * The recommendation as worded makes it sound like the applicant can only apply for variants in the next immediate round. However, applicants may apply for additional variants in a subsequent round. Unclear why this is problematic. * The terminology "must be required" might be what Org sees as problematic. Adjusting it to something like "must be allowed to submit..." could potentially address the Org comment. * The suggestion was to require applicants to not submit multiple applications. * Can perhaps address in implementation guidance. * As a reminder for 3.4 and in relation to string similarity, the hybrid model considers allocatable strings that are NOT applied for, so the impact of the string changes may not be severe. Action Item: Come back to Rec 3.4 during a future meeting and look at the second part of the ICANN Org comment in particular. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.5: Suggestion from RySG is to not just limit to future rounds. Need to assess whether the limitation to IDN gTLDs is appropriate. Comment from ICANN org should be read in conjunction with input to IG 3.6. Rec 3.5 sounds like it is unscored whereas 3.6 makes it sound like it should be scored. This seems inconsistent. * If “IDN” is to be maintained, then 2012 round reference may not be needed, since there were no IDNs before. * Applying change from RySG removes ambiguity and does not seem to change the intent. Remove “IDN” and “from the 2012 round”, even if the suggestion to remove “IDN” is not captured in the comment. * Reviewing tab for IG 3.6: This is directly connected to Rec 3.5 and is potentially the source of inconsistency from the ICANN org perspective. * Perhaps changing IG to no longer refer to criteria may make it less likely to be interpreted to being a scored question. * Why have an unscored question? * Also unclear who the target is for developing criteria. Presumably this would be completed by ICANN org and the IRT. * The purpose of this recommendation was to help limit the number of applied-for allocatable variants. This was supposed to be seen in conjunction of having not hard limit on variants. * Approach could be to answer Org questions or “disregard” if the EPDP Team does not see it as critical. * Reviewing tab for Rec 3.7: Similar comments from RySG. ICANN org is pointing out that the questions may change substantively since IDN variants were not allowed previously, so the rationale may not be accurate * Removing “IDN” may be challenging. May need to capture assumptions since there are complex nuances. For instance, an IDN can have allocatable ASCII variants, but currently, ASCII gTLDs do not have allocatable variants. It’s a good reminder that the premise of this EPDP is generally about IDNs and variants. Trying to future proof the recommendations may be confusing or dilute the purpose of this EPDP. Action Item: EPDP Team to review the comments received prior to the next meeting, to help facilitate further review in the coming weeks 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, 06 July 2023
by Devan Reed July 6, 2023

July 6, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 06 July 2023 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/2YyZDg> (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 recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Transcript * Agenda & Notes/Action Items (if applicable) 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