All,

Apologies for missing the meeting during ICANN, but there were some unavoidable conflicts. Thanks Steve for the notes.

One thing I was struck with is that we were discussing the process/fees for applying for variants, but not focusing on the truly important part which is was would be the criteria by which we would be satisfied that a proposal for a variant TLDs should be accepted. In previous weeks we discussed in length the importance of requiring that registries demonstrate that they are able to manage variants which include not just the actual registration process, but their plans for educating the public and reducing any potential user confusion.

Until we nail down the criteria and who will assess that criteria, it is premature to be discussing application fees and a “streamlined process”. I am not trying to slow this down, but if we apply the principles approve by SubPro, and frankly used by every TLD launch previously, the fees should be a strict cost recovery (or in other words, the program should be self funding). If we are going to employ some other methodology for fees, it not only needs to completely supportable by rationale, but we would need to discuss how to ensure that the Org is able to pay for the program. If it doesn’t come from the applicants, then where does the money come from? At the end of the day we should not be setting any fees as a policy group. Rather, we should only be setting the methodology by which the fees are determined. To do otherwise is not only way beyond our expertise, but it goes beyond policy development.

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 5:26 PM
To: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP ICANN 73, Meeting #26 - 9 March 2022

Dear all,

Please find below the notes from today’s meeting at ICANN73 on Wednesday, 9 March 2022 at 18:30 UTC.

Best,

Ariel, Emily, Steve

Action Items:

Action Item: Develop questionnaire to survey existing IDN gTLD registry operators (Chinese and Arabic only) for EPDP Team review. Propose timing for responses from ROs.

Notes – IDNs EPDP Call ICANN73 – 9 March 2022

Welcome & Chair Updates

Reminder to review draft language for A5 and A6
A7 – input received from the NCSG that there should be consultation with the CJK GPs. Staff is tasked with developing a streamlined request
Daylight savings impact. Likely to suggest maintaining the same UTC time of 13:30
During CPH/Board discussion, the need to ensure implementable recommendations was raised. It’s a good reminder for this group as it develops its recommendations.
Discussion on the Board liaison role as well – they should have their Board hats on to consider best interests concerns and that recommendations are implementable, so such things can potentially be identified earlier in the process.

Input may not be in real time as Board discussion may be warranted.

Continue discussion on Charter Questions D1b and B4 & begin discussion on Charter Questions B4a and B5

D1b

Question is about existing and new ROs applying for variant labels, as well as associated fees.
Part 1 (new applicant and allocatable variants) – desire to have a single application process for the set
Part 2 (for existing ROs) – simplified, standalone process. However, unclear how much of the 2012 structure would be needed. Outstanding action item to develop a strawman for the simplified process.
New discussion item – determining if there is demand for variant labels from existing ROs, before embarking on developing a standalone process.
Delegated IDN gTLDs – 92; Chinese and Arabic gTLDs – 61; 47 unique ROs for the 61 applicable IDN gTLDs
Proposal is to survey applicable ROs to determine interest/need, how many, timing, additional considerations.
Cyrillic is included twice, likely a typo. There are two colors without a label as well.
Existing ROs may have price sensitivity, so it might be worth asking about that (e.g., $185k, free, somewhere in between). And also could consider asking which specific variants the RO is interested in.
$185k was based on a more robust process than would likely be needed for a dedicated IDNs round.

Action Item: Develop questionnaire to survey existing IDN gTLD registry operators (Chinese and Arabic only) for EPDP Team review. Propose timing for responses from ROs.

Part 3 (associated fee for applying/activating a variant label for an existing gTLD). Some have noted the revenue neutral approach, others have noted that the $185k from 2012 could possibly cover the costs.
Maybe helpful to look at the question in three pieces: For future applicants, for existing ROs, and for both future applicants and existing ROs.
For future applicants: should there be a single cost for the primary gTLD and variants?
For existing ROs – should there be a charge to activate variants?
For future and existing – what should the annual registration fee be for variants?
The goal is not to determine a precise fee, but rather talk about the principles the EPDP Team is interested in.
The standard application fee will be established by the SubPro IRT, so we do not know the specific amount, but we know what is included.
The fee should not be free, but also not as high as the full amount. For annual fees, no annual fee, but it could be aggregated for domains under management. Some support from others for this approach.
There was some SubPro discussion about fairness of an IDN gTLD and its variants paying only a single amount.
Support for additional fee being applicable for variants, stressing that it should not be the full amount.
The IDN variant is not necessarily a commercial opportunity or exploring a new market, it’s intended for end users and registrants. From a market perspective, it’s like operating a single gTLD.
If the approach is revenue neutral, this would imply a cost for variants.
Summary - For future applicants, it would be the main application fee plus some additional fee for the variants. It could be handled similarly to the 2012 processes that required extra fees in some instances (e.g., CPE, registry services eval, etc.)
From a technical perspective, variant TLDs are like any other gTLD. However, the policy assessment is that variants are special.
A next step may require that the evaluation process be analyzed to determine which steps would not apply.
In considering the ongoing fees, the concept of the primary gTLD and its variants being a single gTLD should be considered.
Suggestion again that the transactions be aggregated for principle and variants to determine number of transactions.
End users consider the domain and its variants as the same.
Noted that any agreements during this discussion is preliminary and dependent upon consultation with SO/AC/SG/Cs.

This question is limited to the timing and sequence for applying for allocatable variant TLD labels, not examining the evaluation process itself.
Timing – within a gTLD application round OR on a rolling basis
Sequence – in a single package or separately, when needed
Questions to consider:

Can allocatable variants be applied for outside of the application round?
Can an applicant apply for variant labels on a rolling basis or must they all be applied for at once.

There are implications if variants are applied for versus simply being allocated.
The timing may be impacted by what level of effort is needed to allow for the activation of an IDN variant. This question may be difficult to answer without understanding the relevant processes.
Preference from some is to allow variant activation outside of an application round.
One way to allow for simplified activation of variants is to evaluate the entire allocatable set up front.
Different competing needs: market needs, promoting IDNs, preserving security and stability. These competing interests need to be taken into consideration.
Important to keep in mind that the number of allocatable variants is constrained by the RZ-LGR itself.
There are still questions to consider, like how variants are considered in string sim, objections. Reiterated that a rolling basis could be supported by pre-evaluating the entire set.

B4a

AOB

None

Steven Chan 

Senior Director, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 

Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar