- Gnso-epdp-idn-team - lists.icann.org

**REMINDER** Action needed | Minimum Version Requirement of Zoom | by 04 May 2024
by Julie Bisland 26 Apr '24

26 Apr '24

Dear all, Beginning May 4, Zoom will enforce a new minimum version [support.zoom.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&…> to use the Zoom application. This allows participants to use Zoom’s features and ensures security enhancements are in place. Users who are not up to date will join via browser. We encourage you to update your Zoom Client [support.zoom.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&…>. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Phase 2 Initial Report Published for Public Comment
by Steve Chan 12 Apr '24

12 Apr '24

Dear EPDP Team Members, We are very pleased to share that the Phase 2 Initial Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/epdp-idns-phas…> has been published for public comment. You can check the announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/seeking-feedback-on-phase-2-…> or proceed directly to the public comment page<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-2-initial-report-o…>. Great job EPDP Team, and thanks to the fearless EPDP leadership team! While I might be sending out this notice, Saewon and Dan did the heavy lifting to get the report published. Thanks to them for their efforts! Best, Saewon, Dan, Ariel, and Steve Steven Chan  VP, 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…>

3 2

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] 回复: [EPDP-IDNs P2] Draft Initial Report - Request for Review
by Nitin Walia 10 Apr '24

10 Apr '24

Dear Donna, Saewon and colleaguesFirstly my Apologies for the delayed reply. I appreciate the leadership group and staff for creating yet another enormous report.I reviewed the draft and i support to post it for public comment.RegardsNitin WaliaDirector Data Ingenious Global Limited Sent from Xgenplus Mobile app. 发件人: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> 代表 Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> 发送时间: 2024年4月5日 9:24 收件人: gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> 主题: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] [EPDP-IDNs P2] Draft Initial Report - Request for Review Dear EPDP Team Members, Thank you all for your kind feedback related to the new contents that Steve shared last week. Please find attached the long-awaited draft of the P2 Initial Report (word doc.). With the report hot off the press, kindly note that the leadership team has not yet had the opportunity to fully review the report, but due to time limits, they will be doing so alongside the team. The Initial Report is scheduled to be published for Public Comment on 11 April 2024. Accordingly, the Staff would greatly appreciate all your kind review, providing feedback and comments, if any, by Tuesday, 9 April 2024 EOD, giving us a full day in preparation for publication. We look forward to your kind cooperation. Much appreciated, Steve, Ariel, Dan, and Saewon. Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org

3 2

[EPDP-IDNs P2] Draft Initial Report - Request for Review
by Saewon Lee 10 Apr '24

10 Apr '24

Dear EPDP Team Members, Thank you all for your kind feedback related to the new contents that Steve shared last week. Please find attached the long-awaited draft of the P2 Initial Report (word doc.). With the report hot off the press, kindly note that the leadership team has not yet had the opportunity to fully review the report, but due to time limits, they will be doing so alongside the team. The Initial Report is scheduled to be published for Public Comment on 11 April 2024. Accordingly, the Staff would greatly appreciate all your kind review, providing feedback and comments, if any, by Tuesday, 9 April 2024 EOD, giving us a full day in preparation for publication. We look forward to your kind cooperation. Much appreciated, Steve, Ariel, Dan, and Saewon. Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

6 8

Action needed | Minimum Version Requirement of Zoom | by 04 May 2024
by Terri Agnew 04 Apr '24

04 Apr '24

Dear all, Beginning May 4, Zoom will enforce a new minimum version [support.zoom.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&…> to use the Zoom application. This allows participants to use Zoom’s features and ensures security enhancements are in place. Users who are not up to date will join via browser. We encourage you to update your Zoom Client [support.zoom.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&…>. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Draft Text For EPDP Team Review - IDN Table Harmonization
by Steve Chan 02 Apr '24

02 Apr '24

Dear EPDP Team Members, I have some good news! The RySG members of this group and ICANN org worked together and reached alignment on recommendation/implementation guidance language related to IDN table harmonization. While there was no disagreement on requiring a consistent variant domain set across a gTLD and its gTLD variant labels (see Preliminary Recommendation 5), there however was not yet alignment on the need for establishing minimum deployment requirements as an element of IDN table harmonization (see charter question C5). As a result of that alignment, the RySG members drafted Preliminary Recommendation 6 and Implementation Guidance 7, which you can find on page 8 of the working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/129tAjA3uQxK2xbJK4F1EAHtPvbh3Qa3Kqf6vE-J…. Please note, the leadership team and staff have applied a handful of suggested changes to the RySG members’ language, with the intention to have them follow some general best practices for PDP recommendations/implementation guidance. For instance, you will see “should” has been replaced with “must” in the recommendation. And for the implementation guidance, we are suggesting that it be less prescriptive (i.e., removing the specific reference to a working party), and simply state that the various parties work together to develop the minimum IDN variant deployment requirements. On pages 8-9, we have proposed the accompanying rationale language. Additionally, we have prepared draft language for the table related to the deferred guidelines from the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. While the table has already been shared with all of you, there is new text on pages 7-8: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15ge2e7KHzN3DQIxe4D1OnsiTaMbNaUuv26stqSn… We would appreciate your review of these two documents, just focusing on the new content. We believe this is the final substantive missing piece standing in the way of publishing the Phase 2 Initial Report for public comment. If you have any questions, or more importantly, any concerns that would prevent the inclusion of this language in the initial report as drafter, please share on list no later 2 April 2024. Concurrently, your staff team is also working on all other elements of the Phase 2 Initial Report. We intend to share that document in its entirety on 3 April 2024, allow approximately a week for EPDP Team review, then publish for public comment on 11 April 2024. Exciting times! Congratulations everyone for reaching this point in the process! Best, Saewon, Dan, Ariel, and Steve Steven Chan  VP, 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…>

3 3

Reminder: Updated Recommendation Text for IDN Table Harmonization, Domain Name Query & IDN Implementation Guidelines
by Saewon Lee 07 Mar '24

07 Mar '24

Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, We hope the ICANN79 Community Forum is going smoothly for you all. It was great seeing you all on Saturday for the first session. While we wait to finalize the IDN Table harmonization mechanism topic, the leadership and staff would like to draw your attention again to the following revised languages related to domain name query and IDN Implementation Guidelines, as Ariel had shared last Wednesday, 28 Feb: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V…> * New Rec 12 & IG 17: pp.33-35 * New Rec 19: p.38, and rationale on p.43 (New Rec 14 and New IG 18 unchanged from last call) If no concerns with the above updates by Wednesday, 6 March, 16:00 UTC, we intend to move forward with the proposed language in the initial report. We look forward to your kind cooperation. Much appreciated, Ariel, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 5:19 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Updated Recommendation Text for IDN Table Harmonization, Domain Name Query & IDN Implementation Guidelines Dear All, In preparation for the EPDP-IDNs Team meeting in ICANN79 San Juan, please find the updated recommendation text that will be discussed during the session on Saturday, 2 March at 9:00-10:00 Local time: For updated language related to domain name query and IDN Implementation Guidelines, please see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z…> * New Rec 12 & IG 17: pp.33-35 * New Rec 19: p.38, and rationale on p.43 (New Rec 14 and New IG 18 unchanged from last call) For the IDN Table harmonization mechanism topic, please find the leadership suggested recommendation text on pp.2 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncgw2__5NZku-GUj6zAt2UYyZA9FPB… - heading=h.f5zexghzu33o [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncg…> * Note: page 1 contains previously agreed charter question C5 response and RySG input provided during the last call; rationale will be added after EPDP Team’s agreement on the recommendation text The suggested agenda for the session is the following: 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (3 min) 3. Proposed Draft Recommendations for C5 - IDN Table Harmonization Mechanism (30 min) 4. Close Loop on Updated Preliminary Recommendations on UDRP and IDN Implementation Guidelines (20 min) 5. Next Steps (2 min) 6. AOB (3 min) Safe travels to those who will attend ICANN79 in person, and look forward to seeing others online as well. Best Regards, Ariel

4 3

Updated Recommendation Text for IDN Table Harmonization, Domain Name Query & IDN Implementation Guidelines
by Ariel Liang 01 Mar '24

01 Mar '24

Dear All, In preparation for the EPDP-IDNs Team meeting in ICANN79 San Juan, please find the updated recommendation text that will be discussed during the session on Saturday, 2 March at 9:00-10:00 Local time: For updated language related to domain name query and IDN Implementation Guidelines, please see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V… * New Rec 12 & IG 17: pp.33-35 * New Rec 19: p.38, and rationale on p.43 (New Rec 14 and New IG 18 unchanged from last call) For the IDN Table harmonization mechanism topic, please find the leadership suggested recommendation text on pp.2 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncgw2__5NZku-GUj6zAt2UYyZA9FPB… - heading=h.f5zexghzu33o<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncgw2__5NZku-GUj6zAt2UYyZA9FPB…> * Note: page 1 contains previously agreed charter question C5 response and RySG input provided during the last call; rationale will be added after EPDP Team’s agreement on the recommendation text The suggested agenda for the session is the following: 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (3 min) 3. Proposed Draft Recommendations for C5 - IDN Table Harmonization Mechanism (30 min) 4. Close Loop on Updated Preliminary Recommendations on UDRP and IDN Implementation Guidelines (20 min) 5. Next Steps (2 min) 6. AOB (3 min) Safe travels to those who will attend ICANN79 in person, and look forward to seeing others online as well. Best Regards, Ariel

3 3

Notes and Action Items from IDN EPDP Meeting #107
by Daniel Gluck 28 Feb '24

28 Feb '24

Hi All, Please find below the notes and action items from last Thursday’s (22 Feb 2024) IDN EPDP Meeting #107.<https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg> Thanks! Ariel, Steve, Saewon, and Dan ACTION ITEMS * IDN Table Harmonization: Leadership will discuss this draft text and work through a potential way forward to incorporate the Registries Small Team work into the P2 report, but also other feedback around potential changes to the third point in the text and also how everything interacts with question C5. * Updated Preliminary Recommendations: Staff and Leadership will draft an updated PR12 and IG 17 to best reflect the desires of the team by keeping the guidance generic but allowing a path forward. NOTES * Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) * Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) * The Chair welcomed the team to the call * IDN Table Harmonization Update (40 min) * The small team from the RySG presented their findings on IDN Table Harmonization * A draft of the text was circulated to the email list https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2024-February/001279.html * This was communicated over the call and clarified with additional observations * The original draft had conversations about IDN Tables. This was consciously moved away from by the small team * Through conversations with ICANN org, there was a discussion that while IDN Tables are a solution, they're not the only solution * This is a placeholder for future IDN Guidelines work groups to discuss and then implement * A member of the EPDP Team asked why IDN tables were removed and commented that the recommendation does not clarify how harmonization is completed and; * There are two parts of the harmonization process. * The process of how the table should be harmonized * The data that is used * The new text does not specify which data should be used for harmonization. * RZ-LGR is a representation of the script community and end users. It contains scripts and additional code points. It was the fallback baseline recommendation when the text was originally being discussed. * What was recently discussed was that the registries team was the RZ-LGR could work at the top level, but not for the second level. * A second data set was recommended * Also recommended if a dataset could not be defined, then a follow-up action / IG could be created to get to this data. * The current language is fine but does not provide a path to the data. * It was asked if the circulated text above should supplement or replace the current text? * Unclear at this point, but it's possible to pull out the second point in the email and turn it into a recommendation, per the Chair, along the lines of harmonization at the second level is at the discretion of the registrar / registry / registrants, with a provision that future implementation guidelines would address this issue. * Point 1 is a statement of fact. Point 2 could be used to draft a recommendation around and would replace what is in C5. The Chair does not want to lose what is currently in C5. Point 3 could be viewed as a starting point for the IDN Implementation Guideline Working Group. * An author of the circulated text said it could be used to tease out a response for question C5 and not replace the current response. The text could also be used as implementation guidance. * There is a “clear demarcation” for the 1st point in the text per a team member * At the second level, it is up to the registries to implement harmonization. * The rules from the root zone do not need to be applied directly to the second level and is why the registries small team clarified this in the circulated text. * It was asked if there would be any willingness from the Registries small team to augment the second point in the text to incorporate details from the team member earlier around a path for data. * The third point in the text was where there was room identified to incorporate this point, but there was a concerted effort to not specifically mention any process and constrain the text, per an author of the circulated text. If the text is a bit too high level, the registries small team would be amenable to updating the third bullet over the second. The second point for the registries is a sticking point at this time. * With the principles and need to interpret them correctly, there may be a need to update the 2nd and 3rd points to describe the mechanism to make it more clear. Also potential to collapse into C4, but aiming for C5. * [ACTION ITEM] Leadership will discuss this draft text and work through a potential way forward to incorporate the Registries Small Team work into the P2 report, but also other feedback around potential changes to the third point in the text and also how everything interacts with question C5. * As a summary, there is a recommendation that tables have to be harmonized. It was agreed that the team wouldn’t suggest “how”. The registries have not suggested the “how” but these are principles on how ICANN org and other stakeholders could work on this. There could be an IG to suggest this. A recommendation that says the implementation guideline working group could work on this shouldn't hold up the IRT or hold up the next round as a dependency. * Close Loop on Draft Recommendations (70min) * Updated Preliminary Recommendations 12 and 14 * PR12 * Text was proposed by a team member to elevate the recommendation to not focus on the protocol but to discuss the services rendered and how the behavior should be shaped. * Registration data services returns information on registered / existing domain names / objects. Unallocated variants being introduced to this system would not be a great use case for RDAP. * Since RDAP is the replacement protocol for WHOIS, it was included in the D8 response when the text was drafted. It was suggested to replace RDAP with RDDS in a comment on the text. The intent from this comment is to differentiate between the protocol (WHOIS and RDAP) and the service (RDDS). * RDDS may be safer to use in case the protocol is replaced in the future. It refers to both current protocols. It is up to the requester which service to use (RDAP vs WHOIS) * It may be difficult to find a one size fits all answer for PR12. RDAP may not have to be replaced by RDDS in all cases. * The team must be very clear with their terminology. RDDS is in registry contracts and refers to both RDAP and WHOIS. It was suggested that using RDAP could make registry jobs more complicated. * It was asked what the authoritative source for an end user to determine the complete data set? * The authoritative source would be the registry. The registry determines the set. The list of potential variants could be registered, unregistered, delegated, undelegated, etc. * Clarity for what information is being asked for here could be important. * RDDS will not solve all of the problems here, but it is an improvement to RDAP. * Text was submitted as a consideration to replace PR12. * In the case of a variant, it should be possible for a registrant to look up the full variant set. The query should overcome the potential confusion on if a name is part of a variant set. Some registrars have a way to display that information, but the team discussions are working on ways to overcome similar issues. * The intent is clear but the terminology is to be determined. * Proposed initial draft from staff would mention that the user must be able to see allocated and source domains to calculate the variants with additional text that would not specify the protocol or service (keep it generic) and this was preliminarily welcomed by the team. * There was caution to use “should” instead of “must” when drafting that idea. * [ACTION ITEM] Staff and Leadership will draft an updated PR12 and IG 17 to best reflect the desires of the team by keeping the guidance generic but allowing a path forward. § PR14 · Proposed text was drafted for new PR14 and IG 18 to reflect recent discussions with ccPDP4. o Implementation Guidance 18 being separated from the recommendation allows for flexibility in how this is carried out in terms of the level of detail of a charter. The elements / level of detail of the CSC Charter vs PDP charters was discussed as an example. Allowing the flexibility for the IDN Implementation Guidelines Working Group is the goal of this. o The ccNSO discussion was very fruitful and one issue of concern was the charter being in the recommendation and it is why it was split off into implementation guidance. · The process described to establish the work group was discussed. · There were comments submitted about if the approval / documentation process is a one-time event or recurring. What is a triggering event to constitute the IDN Implementation Guidelines Working Group? · There was some desire to leave the text as is from some team members. · No substantive changes to the PR or IG are needed, a sentence was deleted during this call within the rationale. o Glossary: Variant § Staff walked the team through some of the updates made to glossary entries, specifically for “Variant”. Context and notes were provided for the new definition to ensure the understanding that “variant” is not used on its own. § There were no comments from the team. * AOB (3 min) * Due to discussions today, there will likely be a meeting at ICANN79 in San Juan (Saturday, 2 March at 9:00 am local time)

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 22 February 2024
by Devan Reed 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 22 February 2024 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg> (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