Hi All,

Please find below the notes and action items from the 21 September 2023 IDNs EPDP meeting #97 at 12:00 UTC.

Best Regards,

Ariel, Steve, and Dan

Action Items

• The chair asked registries and registrars to work on Rec 3.5.4 by next week, including having a discussion together with the ALAC after they finish their review, to find potential solutions to this recommendation item. 
• The registries and registrars will also work on reviewing and potentially proposing updated language for I.G. 3.6 by next week.
• The team will review the proposed Rec 4.4 for discussion next week.

Notes

Roll Call and SOI Updates (2min)          

Welcome and Chair Updates (5min)

• The chair welcomed everyone to the call and started by updating the team on the .Quebec situation. 
  • EPDP Leadership will respond to comments sent regarding this topic to let them know that GNSO Council will be taking over responsibility in that matter.

Review of comments for Rec 3.5, I.G. 3.6, and Rec 4.4 (90 min)

• Staff described the proposed language for Recommendation 3.5 that was circulated on the IDNs EPDP mailing list for review
  • They then described comments received from team members representing the registrars, registries, and ICANN Org on Rec 3.5.4 and I.G. 3.6
  • It was pointed out that the recent board resolution on “singular vs plural” (see recommendation 24.3 https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en.pdf) may be of note for these items. This also leaves a possibility for these items to be covered by the implementation team and not the EPDP. 
    • A different team member asked to see possible examples of this in action.

• It was replied that end users have to deal with “equivalent” domain names on a regular basis, due to a variety of factors. At the end of the day, it may be confusing but the important domains for this team to consider are names that are registered. Having the variants activated vs not activated can create confusion in different ways. This participant would also like to see scenarios that could be presented to applicants to reduce the confusion.

• The chair pushed back on providing examples and instead posed the idea to the team on what if the question was about permutation issues instead of user confusion. 
• One comment submitted asked about user-confusion and the burden placed on applicants for IDN TLDs. 
• Another team member responded to these comments from the perspective of the At Large, including a discussion about subjectivity of the criteria for applicants.
• The chair discussed their approach to re-wording 3.5.4. This included the idea of not having a ceiling (as described in 8.1) and addressing the concerns of the team by including more specific criteria within all of 3.5 (incl. 3.5.4) about the top and second level. This is to make sure the applicant understands permutations and the challenges that could arise because of that. If the language is not agreed upon, everyone is open to compromise, and this is part of the process. 
• ICANN staff described a scenario where there may be user confusion:
  • Instead of getting one domain they expected, they get 16 variants, without knowledge of what this means or how to make this work.
  • There is not really a compliance issue at play to verify information at the registration level, but it is about providing awareness of variants at the time of application.
• A team member from the ALAC asked for additional time to review the proposed language due to recent travel
• ACTION ITEM: The chair asked registries and registrars to work on Rec 3.5.4 by next week, including having a discussion together with the ALAC after they finish their review, to find potential solutions to this recommendation item. 
• They are trying to address the potential for frivolous applications and for the applicants to demonstrate that they understand the potential consequences of a new gTLD, with up to four free variants.
  • Once it is in the registry agreement, the applicant will not be held to much of their application agreement (outside of application fee and registration information)
• Staff also described Implementation Guidance 3.6, with the comments received on this from team members
  • ACTION ITEM: The registries and registrars will also work on reviewing and potentially proposing updated language for I.G. 3.6 by next week.
• Staff then described the language proposed by leadership for Recommendation 4.4
  • A team member commented that the language is very similar to that in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. 
    • Staff affirmed that this is the source of much of Rec 4.4. but adapted for variants.
      • There is a concern that this may not be relevant due to a revised applicant guidebook. 
        • Leadership described the reason for duplication being that there is no new guidebook at this time and that it is unsure what a new guidebook will say. 
          • The team member agreed with this and approved of the current text as long as it does not create conflict with the future guidebook.
  • ACTION ITEM: The team will review the proposed Rec 4.4 for discussion next week.

Timeline and Consensus Call Updates (20 min)

• The updated timeline for the phase 1 final report was presented by staff. Presuming that Recs 3.5 and 4.4 and I.G. 3.6 can be finalized by 28 September, the timeline covers the consensus call starting on or around 28 September and concluding by 16 October. ICANN78 starts later that same week and there are three sessions planned for the EPDP in Hamburg - two on Sunday, one on Monday 23 October. The third and final session will be the final opportunity to resolve any challenges to the consensus designation. The Goal at this meeting is to inform the GNSO Council that the Phase 1 Initial Report is complete during the Council Session on 25 October. If there are any recommendations without full consensus, minority statements would be due on 30 October. Finally, on or before 9 November, the plan is to submit the Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council.
  • Initial feedback from team members was positive for the timeline.
• The consensus call process was then detailed by Staff. The consensus call is for just the recommendations and not the report as a whole. More information on the consensus call is located in the EPDP Charter. The steps for this process are as follows: Propose Consensus Designation, Initiate Consensus Call, Member Confirmation, Minority Statement, and Final Report Documentation. 
  • Of note is that while there may be multiple representatives from individual stakeholder groups, constituencies, and bodies, each group will only receive one comment.  

AOB

• The chair adjourned the call.