Thank you for raising an important point, Dennis, and what a good catch! 😊 Staff agrees that “exemption (grandfathering)” does not apply to the mechanism recommended in Rec.14. Please refer to the updated language, unless there are any objections: (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14 [from Dennis]: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to determine a mechanism to communicate between each other to facilitate the registration and management of variant domain namesprovide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfatheredexempted variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exemptexcluded from this requirement.” (New Draft) Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end userinterested party to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators should accept requests for and consider whetherdisclosure of this information and unless there are data privacy concerns, the information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrarICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 12:03 PM To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Suggested Updates for Outputs 14-15 Saewon, thank you for sending this. Regarding Rec 14: I believe the last sentence could be removed (i.e., “the exempted variant domain name….”) as it is confusing and it is not applicable in this instance, in my opinion. Unless the intention is different but needs rewording. This is my rationale; the requirement is to develop a mechanism to communicate between RY and RR. This communication mechanism (e.g., protocol, query/response transaction) should be agnostic to any particular status of a domain name or variant name. The exempted domain names per Rec 3 are no different. The query/response mechanism should not exclude any domain name string. In fact, the RR will need to know the information to handle the exempted domain name in the right manner. That is, they will be handled per Rec 3. Dennis From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2024 at 11:09 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Suggested Updates for Outputs 14-15 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 EPDP-IDNs Team, Per today’s Team Meeting, please find the suggested updates for Outputs 14-15 below: (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14 [from Dennis]: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to determine a mechanism to communicate between each other to facilitate the registration and management of variant domain namesprovide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfatheredexempted variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exemptexcluded from this requirement.” (New Draft) Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end userinterested party to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators should accept requests for and consider whetherdisclosure of this information and unless there are data privacy concerns, the information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrarICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” Kindly note that while Staff is still waiting for ICANN org’s role related to the above suggestion(s), it may not need to be determined within the Outputs themselves but can be described within the rationales, if at all. Hence, please provide any feedback or comments, including any support, through the mailing list, if possible, so as to conclude the text for Outputs 14-15 by our next Team Meeting. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 30, 2024 at 12:45 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Action Item 1: Feedback Request for Outputs 14-15 Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Per our Team discussion, leadership/staff would like to share the proposed language for Outputs 14-15 with the respective rationales again for your review and feedback. Kindly review the proposal together with your respective groups and provide feedback either through the mailing list or during the next Team meeting (5 September), if possible. Leadership/staff envisions the finalization of these Outputs by Thursday, 12 September, at 12:00 UTC. * Output 14 Recommendation 14: Rationale for change After EPDP Team deliberations, it became apparent that two concepts were being combined in PR 14 and IG 15. Firstly, registries and registrars need a mechanism to communicate between themselves, to determine what the allocated and allocatable variant domain names are for a given domain name, for a variety of reasons, but principally, to ensure that the same entity requirement is adhered to. Secondarily, an end user needs to be able to determine what the allocated variant domain names are (e.g., interest in registering a domain name or filing a URS complaint). Because of these two distinct purposes, it likely makes sense to delineate them into a separate recommendation and implementation guidance. (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the “same entity” principle and its implications for variant domain names, ICANN org should work with relevant stakeholders to develop and enable a service to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” * Output 15 Implementation Guidance 15: Rationale for change Support staff reached out to ICANN Legal, to determine whether there may be data privacy concerns from disclosing the allocated variant domain names of a given domain name. Though the disclosure of allocated variant domain names may not directly expose personal data, it could reveal details about the registrant that may unintentionally compromise their privacy. As such, the recommendation from legal is to restrict public access to this information or avoid disclosure altogether. However, there are reasons that an end user may need this information. (New Draft) Final Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end user to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, registrars should accept and consider whether disclosure of this information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrar should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Implementation Guidance 15 “Final Recommendation 14 is intended as a minimum requirement. A registry or a registrar may choose to enhance the behavior of the service to provide additional information or enable other methods to provide the following information (e.g., bulk services): 15.1 the required data elements for the given domain name in accordance with the Registration Data Policy; 15.2 all the other allocated variant domain name(s) under a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant label(s), if any; and 15.3 the source domain name used to calculate the variant domain set.” Thank you for your kind cooperation. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 8:00 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Re: Review Request and New Language for Outputs 14-15 Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Adding on to the long list of homework, kindly find the updates to pp.39-47 in Section 4 for “Charter Questions with No Outputs”: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1DccGVf4NJZQuMzYLV7X...> We look forward to your kind review and feedback by Wednesday, 4 September, 2024, at 21:00 UTC. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 at 11:01 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Review Request and New Language for Outputs 14-15 Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, As we prepare for our next meeting on Thursday, 29 August at 12:00 UTC, this is a friendly reminder for the Team to review and provide feedback for “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-20, excluding 14-15, 17). The links to these documents are shared for your convenience again below: * Grandfathered suggestions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-mAst_ajV-P3DFRhzyE8O4vDKWdZR... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1jdSB8vIKy6LzUBKqt0k...> * Section 3 (Glossary): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1AmCAqD71VIBEB54QK8D...> * Section 4 (Outputs 1-20): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JjU96auePhN8Plkugyf...> As for the Outputs 14-15, please see below the suggested new language and the reason behind each one, based on the Public Comment and Team’s discussions, for your review. The current language within the working document is also presented for you below. This item will be discussed during our meeting this Thursday and the new language will only be incorporated into the working document once the Team reaches an agreement: * Output 14 Recommendation 14: Rationale for change After EPDP Team deliberations, it became apparent that two concepts were being combined in PR 14 and IG 15. Firstly, registries and registrars need a mechanism to communicate between themselves, to determine what the allocated and allocatable variant domain names are for a given domain name, for a variety of reasons, but principally, to ensure that the same entity requirement is adhered to. Secondarily, an end user needs to be able to determine what the allocated variant domain names are (e.g., interest in registering a domain name or filing a URS complaint). Because of these two distinct purposes, it likely makes sense to delineate them into a separate recommendation and implementation guidance. (New Draft) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the "same entity" principle and its implications for variant domain names, gTLD registry operators should work with ICANN-accredited registrars to provide information on the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Final Recommendation 14: “To account for the “same entity” principle and its implications for variant domain names, ICANN org should work with relevant stakeholders to develop and enable a service to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, including an indication of the source domain name(s) and initial source domain name of the variant domain set. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Final Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement.” * Output 15 Implementation Guidance 15: Rationale for change Support staff reached out to ICANN Legal, to determine whether there may be data privacy concerns from disclosing the allocated variant domain names of a given domain name. Though the disclosure of allocated variant domain names may not directly expose personal data, it could reveal details about the registrant that may unintentionally compromise their privacy. As such, the recommendation from legal is to restrict public access to this information or avoid disclosure altogether. However, there are reasons that an end user may need this information. (New Draft) Final Implementation Guidance 15: “In order to allow an end user to discover the allocated variant domain names for a given domain name, registrars should accept and consider whether disclosure of this information should be granted. In considering whether to disclose the information, the registrar should balance the interest of the requestor with those of the data subject, where such balancing is required by applicable law.” (Current Language within the Working Doc.) Implementation Guidance 15 “Final Recommendation 14 is intended as a minimum requirement. A registry or a registrar may choose to enhance the behavior of the service to provide additional information or enable other methods to provide the following information (e.g., bulk services): 15.1 the required data elements for the given domain name in accordance with the Registration Data Policy; 15.2 all the other allocated variant domain name(s) under a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant label(s), if any; and 15.3 the source domain name used to calculate the variant domain set.” Thank you for your kind consideration and we look forward to the discussions soon. Warm regards, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 6:58 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Meeting to Resume 29 August (Usual Meeting Time) Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, We hope you are having a great 2-week break from the EPDP-IDNs! Based on the result of the doodle poll as well as re-evaluating the progress of the remaining work, the Team Meeting will resume on Thursday, 29 August, at 12:00 UTC on the usual meeting time. As previously announced, if the Team needs extra time for further discussions, this will be scheduled for another week in September. In addition, please review the updated language within Outputs 10-13, 16, 18-20 (pp.20-27, 29, 31-37). Kindly note that Outputs 14-15, and 17 are still a work in progress and will be flagged for review at a later date. Also, the Leadership will be reviewing the updated language in parallel with the Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ZqpXdMkOtPqN9HtbGir...> As a reminder, kindly also review and provide feedback to the other requests below, including “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9), for a fruitful meeting when we resume. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 7:48 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Meeting to Resume End of August (Week of 26 August) Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Sincere apologies for the abrupt announcement, but due to unforeseen circumstances which involve the absence of Leadership/several Team members, the EPDP-IDNs Team Meeting for this week and next (15 and 22 August) will be canceled, only to resume during the last week of August (Week of 26 August). The Leadership suggests that, if possible, the Team holds 2 meetings during the last week of August (possibly Tuesday, 27 August and the usual Thursday, 29 August), to not only pick up where we left off but to hopefully conclude the review of comments within the working document for all outputs and other public comment inputs. A doodle poll will be sent out for another meeting during the last week, and if not possible to find the extra time, our meeting will still proceed on Thursday, 29 August. Further scheduling for September (if any more to be scheduled beyond 5 September, other than the Final Consensus Call) will be discussed on 29 August. As another reminder, the updates for Recs.10-20 will be shared soon. In the meantime, please review and provide feedback to the requests below (as none have been provided yet), including “grandfathered” suggestions, Section 3 (Glossary), and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9), for a fruitful meeting when we resume. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 10:44 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] "Grandfathering" for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, As briefly mentioned via our last Team Meeting on 8 August, kindly find in the link ICANN org’s suggested updates to the term, “grandfathered” for your review: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EJdmbLg-mAst_ajV-P3DFRhzyE8O4vDKWdZR... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ajzYMJy2Qw60LlYShsq...> The columns are arranged as follows: * Column A: Relevant Output/Rationale (name/number) where the term is included * Column B: Particular sentence/paragraph including the term(s) * Column C: Replaced term(s) * Column D: Revised sentence/paragraph * Column E: Full text of the Output/Rationale to understand the context * Column F: Notes Upon Leadership/Staff’s revision of ICANN org’s suggested text(s), the Leadership has drawn the conclusion that ICANN org’s approach is the simplest and least disruptive in addressing org’s concerns about using the term, “grandfathered,” in our report. As you can see within the spreadsheet, the general term that was used to replace “grandfathered” was “exempted” (or in some cases, “excluded,” if duplicated within one sentence), which does seem to adequately convey the meaning or intent of the recommendations as drafted. As a reminder, the terms instead of “grandfathered,” that were suggested from ICANN org and the Team via discussions were: * Pre-existing domains * Exempted domains * Domains created before a certain date * Right of Continuance * Transitional exceptions Also as a reminder, please review Section 3 and Section 4 (Outputs 1-9) within the working docs as requested in the emails below. The links are shared with you again for your convenience: * Section 3 (Glossary) pp.8, 11-15: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YAd0nKhx93rTg5cy8Eh...> * Section 4 (Outputs 1-9) pp.3-20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1SpkQdaf5QCZVWxauSXN...> The updates for 10-20 and other general comments will be notified soon. We look forward to your kind review and further discussions related to the terms and Outputs during our next Team meeting. Kind regards, Saewon. From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 3:31 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Working Doc (Section 3) for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, Following Section 4, please find the updated language for Section 3 (Glossary) based on the public comments received; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DPjKUkbD6OUJ3iHkh3UZyEKFhVi-oGFdcG-7dfgc... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1iALLJYHS-JoAxLuQsHa...> The pages to focus on are pp.8, 11-15; Once again, please provide your feedback (sidebar comments only) mainly on the aforementioned parts to review together on Thursday, 15 August, during our Team Meeting. Updates for other parts of the section (or overall) will occur at a later date. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon. From: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:32 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Working Doc (Section 4) for Review Dear EPDP-IDNs Team, We hope this email finds you well. Please find the updated language for Outputs 1-9 so far in the working doc., based on the discussions from the Public Comment Review; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVbsKNfzHoqmuBH6VF1jF73Xr4A_UK7ZXiGmRJjV... [docs.google.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1W4x3DAF5DeOz7l7WJWq...> The pages to focus on are pp.3-19; please provide your feedback (sidebar comments only) to the aforementioned parts only to review together on Thursday, 15 August, during our Team Meeting. Please also note that more updates will occur post Rys’ feedback (post Tuesday, 6 August) and Section 3 updates will also be shared soon. Updates for other parts of the section will occur at a later date. Much appreciated, Steve, Dan, and Saewon.