Hi All,

Please find below the notes and action items from the 12 October 2023 IDNs EPDP meeting #100 at 12:00 UTC.

Best Regards,

Ariel, Steve, and Dan 

ACTION ITEMS

• The team will book travel for the Face-to-Face workshop by 16 October
• The team will complete the Consensus Call Process by 21 October
• Leadership will review the language used in the D4 Team Response, but recommendations will not be changed at this time.
• The ALAC team will review Preliminary Recommendation 5 and the proposed edits in the document.

NOTES

• Roll Call and SOI Updates (2min)       
• Welcome and Chair Updates (5min)
  • The Chair welcomed everyone to the 100th call of the EPDP WG.
  • They also reminded the team about the December face-to-face meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the travel notices that were sent by ICANN Travel Support, which has a deadline for booking of 16 October.
    • ACTION ITEM: The team will book travel for the Face-to-Face workshop by 16 October
• Review of comments on Rec 3.5, IG 3.6, and Rec 4.4 (20)
  • Staff went over the scenario of a gTLD variant application and ccTLD application being submitted at the same time and what would happen.
    • In the proposed text shared by Leadership in 4.4.3.1 this is accounted for, and this received support from the Team.
    • There was a discussion about the role of ccTLDs and GeoTLDs for 4.4.3.2.

• There may be a need to clarify 4.4.3.2.2 and specify the role of GeoTLDs 
• One team member asked if this is related to string similarity
• Another proposed changing “required approval” to “when required” to 4.4.3.2.1 to cover cases where Geographic TLD applications are required but also as to not preclude other types of applications. 

• This was agreed to by the team
• Staff added to the discussion by saying the text in 4.4.3.2.1 originally came from the 2012 Applicant Guidebook 
• Staff discussed the change from “contention” to “conflict” to be clearer in 4.4.3.3 that this is not about string contention resolution, but other conflict.
  • This was agreed to by the team.
• Finally, staff discussed updated rationale language in the document to reflect changes made over the past meetings and proposals from the team.  
  • This included the change from “retrospective” to “retroactive” throughout the document to better reflect the actual intent of the policy
• The chair reminded the team that pending no further comments, the language presented in the Phase 1 Final recommendations during this call will be the language put into the Consensus Call. 
  • There were no additional comments, and the text should be considered final
• Review of Consensus Call Procedures
  • The updated timeline for the Consensus Call process was shared
    • The Consensus Call will be initiated today, 12 October and concluded no later than 21 October (during ICANN78).
      • ACTION ITEM: The team will complete the Consensus Call Process by 21 October.
    • If there are any challenges to consensus designations, they will be resolved no later than 23 October.
    • The goal is to inform the GNSO council of a finalized Phase 1 Final Report on 25 October.
    • Minority Statements would be due 30 October, if applicable.
    • 9 November is the deadline for submission for the Phase 1 Final Report.
  • The process was summarized, with the designations of consensus call being described, as well as the steps from initiating the Consensus Call, Confirming Member acceptance / non-acceptance, Drafting of Minority Statements, and the Final Report Documentation. 
    • The levels of designation for consensus were asked about by a member of the team. It was shared that the GNSO uses their own levels of consensus and that is why they may seem different than the levels used in other SO/ACs.
    • Consensus decisions are made on an individual member basis, unless a Group has more than one representative, then they will speak together. Each delegation will get one vote.
• Review of the phase 2 charter questions (90min)
  • There was a discussion on the language in Preliminary Recommendation (PR) 2
    • It was suggested to replace registered with activated, which was agreed to by the team after clarification by the recommender. 
    • Rationale for PR 2 and PR 3 were also discussed in relation to the grandfathering recommendation in PR 2 and general wording questions in PR 3
  • The D4 team response was discussed for the proposed change from “allocatable” to “allocated” and the technical background for the lifecycle of the process. 
    • This seems to be addressed in Final Recommendation 9.3 of the Phase 1 Final Report.
      • The flow chart in the recommendation visualizes this correct verbiage to use but does not adequately address allocated vs allocatable.
      • Per the chart, allocatable encompasses withheld-same-entity, delegated, allocated
        • ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review the language used in the D4 Team Response, but recommendations will not be changed at this time. 
        • Rationale is a possible venue to reflect these ideas.
  • The rationale for PR 5 received a few comments and edits that were discussed. Specific cases for source labels were discussed 
    • Each namespace has its own rules. They are independent gTLD and the registries set their own processes. A team member discussed this along with the process to calculate the disposition of a variant domain under a variant gTLD in a superset. The primary gTLD source is straightforward but adding a variant gTLD in the set complicates the matter.
      • One recommendation would be for the registrant to select the primary label for each variant gTLD. Not one primary label across ALL variant gTLDs, but one per EACH gTLD. 
      • A question from a different team member about source disposition was asked about whether they must be registered and how they will be defined.
      • The proposed edits will be accepted after discussion by the team, which is believed to be sufficient to address the above discussion. 
        • ACTION ITEM: The ALAC team will review Preliminary Recommendation 5 and the proposed edits in the document.
  • There was also discussion related the topic addressed in RFC 2119 (Should vs Must)
  • The rationale for PR 5 will be addressed at ICANN78, as well as PR 5 itself at a later date.
• AOB (3min)
  • Leadership and Staff discussed a plan / rough agenda for ICANN78. Probable topics include: 
    • Continued Discussion of Source Domain: D4 
    • Identifying the Same Registrant: C3, C3a (TechOps presentation) 
    • Variant Domain Transaction Fees: D5 

o There will be no Call on 19 October due to ICANN78 Travel.

o The Chair wished everyone safe travel to Hamburg and adjourned the meeting.