A few additional comments on 2.3 re: use of “primary label” * Some questions I reckon we will face throughout: what is the “primary” label? what function does it serve? should we use such nomenclature? … some background notes: * When we talk about variants in a set, it is important to note which of all labels is the source for variant label calculation, or as we have adopted: the primary label. As a way of context, first, the variant relationship between two code points must satisfy the symmetrical property (there are other properties, but not relevant to this topic). This means, if ‘A’ is a variant of ‘B’, then ‘B’ is a variant of ‘A’. Second, any variant relationship is also assigned a disposition value: allocatable or blocked. The disposition value is unidirectional. Which means, a variant relationship could yield an ‘allocatable’ variant in one direction (e.g., A-->B: allocatable), but a ‘blocked’ variant in the other direction (e.g., B-->A: blocked). These rules are encoded in the LGR. * As we progress in our deliberations about the lifecycle of gTLDs it is important to understand (and remember) how the various variant labels and disposition values came to be (to discern which ones are allocatable/withheld or blocked). However, I believe we need to remain open (or at least give thoughtful consideration) to cases where one TLD label in the set needs to be handled separately e.g., retirement, and the implications of this one change applies to the rest of the labels in the set. For instance, what if the registry operator wants to retire the “primary” label and continue to operate the rest of variants. In this case, it would be unwise, perhaps, to re-assign the attribute of “primary” to another label in the set, because that might change the profile of the set as a whole (of course, this would depend what “primary” means and how it is used). * All I am saying is let’s be careful where and how we use the term “primary”. Perhaps this is a good test case for stress testing a la ccPDP4. Best, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 at 1:48 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #44 - Thursday 28 July 2022 at 13:30 UTC 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, First, as a reminder – the joint ccPDP4 and IDN-EPDP meeting will take place tomorrow (Tue, 26 July at 14:00-15:30 UTC). We look forward to your participation! Second, as a refresher of last week’s meeting and a preview of the upcoming IDN-EPDP meeting on Thursday (see agenda below), leadership team and staff are proposing the following changes to the draft recommendations 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6, incorporating input received: Rec 2.3 (see p.2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w...): · Summary of discussion – some members raised the concern that the “primary” label was not specified · Recommendation language: revised as “If the registry operator of an IDN gTLD changes its back-end registry service provider, that IDN gTLD and any additional delegated variant label(s) associated with that gTLD must also simultaneously transition to the new back-end registry service provider.” o This revision seeks to clarify the gTLD labels that are impacted by the transition of back-end registry service provider without the need to use the term “primary label” and “set”. · Rationale – replaced the last sentence with the following: “To that end, the transition to a new back-end registry service provider must apply to the primary gTLD and all of its delegated variant labels at the same time.” o This sentence seeks to explain, in general terms, the transition of back-end RSP simultaneously apply to the primary gTLD and all of its delegated variants. Rec 2.5 (see p.3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH...): · Summary of discussion – some members were unsure about adding the phrase “during the same round” at the end of the recommendation language, as the discussion about the process and timing of variant activation is still ongoing. · Recommendation language – no change to the original recommendation language (i.e., not adding “during the same round”) · Rationale part – add the following sentence at the beginning: “The EPDP Team noted SubPro PDP’s recommendation that future applications of new gTLDs ‘must be assessed in rounds’.” o This seeks to provide context that future new gTLD applications are expected to happen in rounds. Rec 2.6 (see p.3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH...): · Summary of discussion – divergence of opinion from RySG and ALAC regarding “ensuring a secure, stable, and consistent user experience” in the rationale · Recommendation language – no change · Rationale – replace the phrase “…with a view to ensuring a secure, stable, and consistent user experience” with “…to achieve the security, stability, and usability goals for IDN variants”. o This is the general goal of variant management as incorporated in the IDN-EPDP charter Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 at 1:06 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #44 - Thursday 28 July 2022 at 13:30 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 28 July 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #44 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 mins) 3. Review Proposed Revisions to Recommendation 2.3 under Charter Question B2 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_Vf...>, and Recommendations 2.5 and 2.6 under Charter Question D1b (part 2) [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4...> (80 mins) 4. AOB (3 mins)