September 2023 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 28 September 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/XZE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2y3rvfhc 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, 21 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

ON NOW Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 September 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/jZaZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4df76jke [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4df76jke__;!!PtGJab4!8EkBDKF…> 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

10 MINUTES REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 September 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/jZaZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4df76jke [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4df76jke__;!!PtGJab4!8EkBDKF…> ONLY for Members and Participants * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 20 Sep '23

20 Sep '23

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 September 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/jZaZDg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4df76jke <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/4df76jke__;!!PtGJab4!8EkBDKF…> 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 Amendment to Rec 4.4
by Ariel Liang 20 Sep '23

20 Sep '23

Hello all, Following the discussion of Rec 4.4 in the last meeting, leadership team was tasked to investigate the scenarios where an applied-for gTLD string or its variant label is confusingly similar to 1) a gTLD string (or any of its variant labels) that was applied-for in a previous round but is still in process; or 2) a requested ccTLD string or any of its variant labels. Subsequently, the leadership is tasked to consider potential amendment to Rec 4.4. Please see below the proposed amendment language highlighted in yellow. Please note that 4.4.3 and its sub elements are consistent with the process as outlined in the 2012 round for resolving conflict between a requested ccTLD string and an applied-for gTLD string. This proposed amendment will be discussed during the upcoming call as well. Thank you! Ariel == Final Recommendation 4.4: All labels from a variant label set, comprising the primary gTLD string and all of its allocatable and blocked variant labels, must share the same outcome out of the String Similarity Review. This means the String Similarity Review, in accordance with Final Recommendations 4.1-4.3, determines that: 4.4.1 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name, a two-character ASCII string, or any of its variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process; or 4.4.2 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to another applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s), the entire variant label sets of the two applied-for primary gTLD strings will be placed in a contention set. Upon the resolution of the contention set, the application that prevails can proceed to the next stage of the application process. 4.4.3 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to a requested primary ccTLD string or any of its variant label(s), ICANN org is expected to take the following approach to resolve the conflict: 4.4.3.1 If one of the applications has completed its respective process before the other is lodged, that primary TLD string (and its approved variant label(s), if applicable) will be delegated. 4.4.3.1.1 A gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) that has successfully completed all relevant evaluation stages, including dispute resolution and string contention, if applicable, and is eligible for entry into a registry agreement will be considered complete, and therefore would not be disqualified by a newly-filed ccTLD request. 4.4.3.1.2 A ccTLD request (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) that is validated will be considered complete and therefore would not be disqualified by a newly-filed gTLD application.* *The term “validated is defined in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn> and reaffirmed in the ccPDP4 Initial Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/138969202/ccPDP4%20-%20sta…>. 4.4.3.2 In the case where neither application has completed its respective process, where the gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) does not have the required approval from the relevant government or public authority, the validated ccTLD request will prevail and the gTLD application will not be approved. 4.4.3.3 In the case where the gTLD application (including the applied-for variant label(s), if applicable) has obtained the support or non-objection of the relevant government or public authority, but is ineligible to proceed due to contention with a ccTLD request, a full refund of the evaluation fee is available to the gTLD applicant if its application was submitted prior to the publication of the ccTLD request. 4.4.4 If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) that has been held over from a previous application round and still in progress, the newly submitted application will be put on hold until the outcome of the application from the previous round has been determined. 4.4.4.1 If the application from a previous round successfully completes evaluation and is eligible for entry into a registry agreement, the entire variant label set of the newly applied-for primary gTLD string is ineligible to proceed in the application process. 4.4.4.2 If the application from a previous round is withdrawn or fails to complete evaluation, the newly submitted application can proceed to the next stage of the application process.

1 0

REMINDER: Review Redlines of Phase 1 Final Recommendations
by Ariel Liang 19 Sep '23

19 Sep '23

Dear All, This is a gentle reminder for reviewing the redlines of the P1 Final Recommendations on the google doc. Please raise any *final* concerns on list by EOB today (Tue, 19 Sep). Please note that further discussion on the proposed amendment to Rec 3.6, IG 3.6, and Rec 4.4 is expected during the upcoming call this week. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 at 1:54 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Review Redlines of Phase 1 Final Recommendations Hello everyone, Following the discussion of the recommendation revision, the leadership team is requesting everyone to conduct a closer review of the proposed redlines in this google doc, including the redlines in the rationale as well as the content in the Public Comment Review sections: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dH7hAtKAuLqMoVftRRvk9JSSlWQOjLuBS_PsTEV… Please raise any *final*concerns regarding these redlines via mailing list by EOB Tuesday, 19 September. The goal is to finalize all of the Phase 1 recommendations during the EPDP Team call on Thursday, 21 September. Please also note the following: * Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 (pp.10-11): Leadership team is expected to propose further revision via mailing list. ALAC and RySG representatives are also encouraged to provide input for 3.5.4. Rationale section has not been updated. * Rec 3.17 (pp.24, 26): A new sentence is added at the end, to accommodate the situation where the CJK GPs decide not to issue any guidelines on single-character TLDs. * Rec 3.22 (pp.30, 32): The phrase “…as recommended by the SubPro PDP” is removed, in the event that Board decides not to adopt the challenge mechanism related SubPro outputs (if the Board decides to adopt, removing this phrase should not change the intent or outcome). * Rec 4.4 (pp.45-46): may need further refinement, pending review of the string similarity process in the 2012 AGB and the treatment of gTLDs / ccTLDs that are already in process but not yet delegated. Thank you all! Have a nice weekend. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Development Support Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #95 - Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC
by Daniel Gluck 19 Sep '23

19 Sep '23

Hi All, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 12:00 UTC (2-hour call) IDNs EPDP Meeting #97 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5min) 3. Review of comments for Rec 3.5, I.G. 3.6, and Rec 4.4 (90 min) 4. Timeline and Consensus Call Updates (20 min) 5. AOB (3 min) Thanks! Ariel, Steve, and Dan

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis 18 Sep '23

18 Sep '23

Hi Donna, Sure. Briefly, Sub Pro’s Recs 24.3 and 24.5 recommended that applicants that appear to be singular and plural of the same word not be automatically place in the same contention set so long the applied-for labels have different intended uses. And, to hold applicants accountable by mandatory public interest commitments to use the TLD in line with the intended use presented in the application. As I read the recommendations it reminded me of question 3.5.4 (i.e., plans to mitigate user confusion). The Board raises concerns about the appropriateness of such recommendations. An applicant may describe its intentions and policies as to how they plan to operate and market the TLD (and operate it as intended), but they cannot control (and ICANN won’t police) how the registrants will use a domain name (use or not use the variants, in our case), and certainly cannot control how end-user interact and react to the content of a website. So, again, I question the justification for question 3.5.4…. What are we trying to solve for? Can we measure it? Can it be enforceable? Dennis From: Donna austin <DonnaAustin605(a)hotmail.com> Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:15 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>, "ariel.liang(a)icann.org" <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dennis Would it be possible for you to expand on how you think the ICANN Board’s response is relevant to our conversation around 3.5.4 and 3.6 please? Thanks Donna From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 15 September 2023 at 5:42 am To: ariel.liang(a)icann.org <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 I found the ICANN Board’s response to SubPro’s Recommendations 24.3, 24.5 regarding singular/plural applications relevant to this conversation. The scorecard can be located in this link https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-acti…<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1cnpQ7X6KKR947RFZOnf7EKO4Hd4zfks6PgPKkvKUyLgSI…> Dennis From: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:36 AM To: "ariel.liang(a)icann.org" <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Hi Ariel, I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation? Thanks, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.

2 1

Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6
by Ariel Liang 18 Sep '23

18 Sep '23

Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.

5 5

GNSO Council Guidance Statement on ".québec"
by Ariel Liang 14 Sep '23

14 Sep '23

Dear All, Please find attached the GNSO Council Guidance Statement on “.québec”. Context of this guidance is included in the email thread below. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 9:34 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: IDN EPDP Phase 1 Initial Report--Public comments out of scope Hello team, As mentioned in the call and for transparency purposes, I’m forwarding Donna’s request to the GNSO Council to provide guidance on the .quebec related comments. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:53 PM To: "gnso-chairs(a)icann.org" <gnso-chairs(a)icann.org> Subject: IDN EPDP Phase 1 Initial Report--Public comments out of scope Hello Seb, As mentioned previously, please find below the communications from Donna Austin regarding the .quebec issue. Thank you, and have a nice weekend. Best, Ariel == Dear Sebastien The IDN EPDP Team (the Team) has recently closed the public comment process for our Phase 1 Initial Report, and we have commenced our review of those comments. In the process of reviewing the comments the Team determined that a number of the comments, namely those related to creating an exceptional process by which the existing registry operator for .quebec could apply “.québec” in a future gTLD round, are out of scope of the IDN EPDP and its Charter. As you are aware, the IDN EPDP Team has been chartered to focus on developing policy recommendations that will allow for the introduction of variant IDN gTLDs. Based on the current RZ-LGR “.québec” is not considered a variant of .quebec. Therefore the proposed exceptional process is not related to variant management but is more generally related to the String Similarity Review process. Rather than dismiss the comments outright, the EPDP Team has agreed to refer the comments to the GNSO Council for consideration and action as determined appropriate. The comments in question were submitted by: Nacho Amadoz on behalf of Amadeu Abril i Abril<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-1-initial-report-o…> Louis Houle<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-1-initial-report-o…> Normand Fortier<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-1-initial-report-o…> Claude Menard<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-1-initial-report-o…> Yours sincerely Donna Donna Austin Chair IDN EPDP Team

1 0