Hello and Welcome Back!
Please find below our proposed agenda for Thursday, 27 June’s IDN EPDP Meeting #108

IDNs EPDP Meeting #108

Proposed Agenda

1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min)
2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min)
3. Continue Reviewing Phase 2 Initial Report Public Comments; (80 min)
   1. Finish Discussions for PR6, IG7
   2. Start Discussions from IG2 (Going no further than IG15, sequentially)
4. AOB (3 min)

And while you’re here, check out the notes from the IDNs Session in Kigali:

• Roll Call and SOI Updates 
• Welcome and Chair Updates 
  • The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting after a hiatus for the team.
  • A roadmap of next steps was provided to the team, including the review of public comments and approximately 10 meetings scheduled for the comment review.
• Overview of Phase 2 Initial Report Public Comment 
  • Staff provided a high-level overview of comments received from different community groups and individuals.
• Start Review of Phase 2 Initial Report Public Comment 
  • There were some global changes for terminology that were presented.
    • Regarding the term “Grandfathered” 

• It may not make sense to use one of the three potential options exclusively and will have to be changed on a case-by-case aspect, per the chair.
• One team member suggested that “grandfathered” has a deep connection to the domain name industry. It has a bundled meaning. It is used commonly and very well understood by all members of the community (Registries, Registrants, Registrars)

• This was seconded by another team member, who also said that it should not be changed just for a social aspect in US history and parlance. 
• Another team member mentioned that a replacement could be “Right of Continuance”. 
• Regarding “Registry Operator(s)”
  • There was some discussion on the relationship between the GNSO and ccNSO and policy development. The argument is that there shouldn’t be a change made to terminology just because ccNSO operators were not amenable to the terminology. It also goes both ways, per the team member.
    • Where should ccTLDs be mentioned in the report? Is it possible to include them in the rationale in this section, outside of just the process of IDN guidelines? 
    • The comfort level among GNSO participants for allowing outside bodies, including the ccNSO, have a say on GNSO matters and contractual requirements was talked about.
• There were two non-substantive recommendations for PR1: 
  • The RrSG and ICANN org submitted comments. 
    • There was a question in why the ICANN org comment specifies “Third-level”.
      • Per a team member in chat “a more specific phrasing may be for only levels for which the registry provides registration services for. Some registries do provide registration at 3rd level”.
        • There is a clear way to say that this should only apply for second-level, per the chair. 
      • Registries have agreements with ICANN. Registrars have agreements with ICANN and Registries. One team member said none of this affects the third-level. This recommendation will add time and headaches for the work that would be completed.
    • It was discussed if guidance could be created to alleviate concerns that a registrar could accidentally do something not allowed, but they were not aware of at the time.
• For PR3:
  • The RySG submitted a comment in support of the recommendation intent with wording change.
    • It was asked WHEN the action in the comment would trigger. One day would be the cut off for the new obligations. There could be consensus policy to determine this date / action deliverable.
    • The RySG comment was approved by the team. This will be added but staff and leadership will review the use of “grandfathered” .
• For PR6, the RrSG had a comment supporting the recommendation.
• For PR6 and IG7, ICANN org and ALAC submitted comments supporting the recommendation with wording change.
  • From the end user perspective, it was requested to make the wording as simple and plain language as possible to make it as understandable as possible. 
  • As this will be policy that affects gTLD registry operators. ccTLDs have been involved in the development of guidelines and whether or not they abide by them is up to them. It shouldn’t preclude this document from being general in scope to go along with the uniformity of approach with the ccPDP4. 
• Next Steps 
  • The team will reconvene for the next EPDP Team call on 27 June at 12 UTC.

Here is the Sched link for the session, where you can find the meeting recording and transcript.

Thanks!
Saewon, Steve, Ariel, and Dan