Hi All,

Please find below the notes and action items from the 10 August 2023 IDNs EPDP meeting #91 at 12:00 UTC.

Best regards,
Ariel, Steve, and Dan

ACTION ITEMS

1. Leadership will review the options to address ICANN Org comments on Implementation Guidance 8.9.
2. For Recommendation 8.11, The team will work on drafting implementation guidance on the request to remove a variant from the root zone which would require a request or a transition plan submitted to ICANN org for consideration to finalize the request.
3. The comment on Rec 8.12 will be accepted without objection. EPDP Support Staff will revise the Recommendation to say ““In the event a TLD is removed from the root zone the rest of the variant label set (if any) must be removed from the root zone.”
4. The comment for I.G. 9.4 will be accepted, pending the changes to the language below:

a. Starting text (9.4.3) “from “rejected” to “withheld-same-entity”: This transition happens when the rejected state of a label comes off; such a variant label can be treated as any other withheld-same-entity label.” 

b. New text (9.4.3)  “from “rejected” to “withheld-same-entity”: This transition happens when the "the condition which led to the rejection of the label no longer applies; such a variant label can be treated as any other withheld-same-entity label.”

1. Leadership will develop revised text for the Global Change based on the following principles:

1. Delete “IDN”
2. Delete “2012 Round”
3. Use “existing” when referring to all of the gTLDs that have been delegated in the root zone
4. Remove the statement led by the asterisk and emphasize the indeed messaging in rationale

NOTES

• Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 

• No updates

• Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 

• Chair provided an introduction for the call and provided an update that the 24 August call will be canceled due to conflict with the GNSO council call at the same time.
• Staff also reminded the team that there was draft text on Phase 2 preliminary recommendations submitted to the email list for their review by 22 August.

• Continue with Public Comment Review, from Rec 8.8 (55 min)

• Starting with I.G. 8.9, the team discussed comments from ICANN org relating to the RZ-LGR Procedure with a proposed team action of amending the linked Recommendation 8.7 from EPDP IDN Leadership. This could happen in different ways, including a disclaimer, but all have the goal of potentially softening language.

• ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review the options to address ICANN Org comments on I.G. 8.9

• On Recommendation 8.11, ICANN Org provided a comment, listed under significant change required due to the language used of “the voluntary review of a variant label from the root zone”. 

• One participant discussed the comment and made a distinction between registrations at the second level that are short-term, so there is no consequence to removing one. 
• In chat another mentioned “A transition plan is a sensible ask that the RO would need to provide describing how they plan to minimize impact to registrants. If existing registrations exist of course.”

1. The chair discussed that if a singular variant label is removed, do you have to remove the other labels? There are more discussions to be had, including if there should be a recommendation or implementation guidance. Whatever the current practice is would be recommended to continue for IDNs.

• Another participant shared that the removal of a label should be in its own recommendation. There would also be possible consequences regarding redelegation. There was also additional support shared for a transition plan for supporting existing registrants. 

1. In chat, they mentioned “such removal could happen due to a state deciding to remove support of a script (I know at least one country moving from Cyrillic based script to Latin based one for a state supported language)”

• A participant mentioned the comment from Org seems a bit strange as the variant TLD should not have different domain name registration from the primary

1. A response from a different participant stated that variant TLDs don’t need to have the same domain name registrations as the primaries. There is a SubPro recommendation to that effect.

1. “SubPro recommendation: Recommendation 25.8: Second-level labels derived from Recommendation 25.6 or Recommendation 25.7 are not required to act, behave, or be perceived as identical.”
2. This was seconded by a participant, but a different participant disagreed with this as it would violate the same entity rule

• It was agreed that the registrant has to be the same entity, but it is up to the registrant if the domain names should behave the same way. 

3. The chair mentioned that it is possible to un-delegate or remove a variant label from a set and there should be no effect on the domain names registered under the primary gTLD. They also asked if the team would support drafting implementation guidance on the request to remove a variant from the root zone, which would require a request or a transition plan submitted to ICANN org for consideration.

• ACTION ITEM: The team will work on drafting implementation guidance on the request to remove a variant from the root zone which would require a request or a transition plan submitted to ICANN org for consideration to finalize the request.

4. The process for re-activating a variant TLD could necessitate a cool-down period

• Some comments in chat included

1. “We don't have a separate process for activating variant TLDs, so I don't know why we would have a separate process for RE-activating a variant TLD. Cooling period is interesting.”
2. “[The] transition plan simply needs to include the quiet period... within the sunset arrangements?”

• A scenario was proposed to the team in chat

1. “RO1 requests un-delegation which is granted and executed, then RO2 acquires RO1’s assets and wants the TLD variant that was undelegated just a few months back”

1. The chair shared that the registrant would have to re apply, but since this would be an edge case it shouldn’t be a major concern.

• What about the costs of reapplying for the formerly removed TLD? 

1. The registrant will have to pay again for the application

• Moving to the supporting comment from ICANN org on Rec. 8.12 and there were no objections to accepting the change from ICANN org

• ACTION ITEM: The comment on Rec 8.12 will be accepted without objection. EPDP Support Staff will revise the Recommendation to say ““In the event a TLD is removed from the root zone the rest of the variant label set (if any) must be removed from the root zone.”

o On I.G. 9.4, there was a discussion about the usage of “applies” vs “applicable” in the place of “relevant” in the I.G., with “applies” being chosen. There was also support for removing “is” in the text. Other than that, no objections to accepting the ICANN org comment.

§ ACTION ITEM: The comment for I.G. 9.4 will be accepted, pending the following changes to the language: 

· Starting text (9.4.3) “from “rejected” to “withheld-same-entity”: This transition happens when the rejected state of a label comes off; such a variant label can be treated as any other withheld-same-entity label.” 

· New text (9.4.3)  “from “rejected” to “withheld-same-entity”: This transition happens when the "the condition which led to the rejection of the label no longer applies; such a variant label can be treated as any other withheld-same-entity label.”

o ICANN staff then walked the participants through the “Other” tab at the end of the public comment tool. On this page there are 8 comments 

§ There were no comments from the Team on this page

o The chair congratulated the team on making it through all public comments and discussed that the Leadership will go through the document and make applicable changes.

• Discuss Global Change Around “Existing”, “IDN”, “Delegated” (55 min)

• ICANN org provided a background on the Global Change, along with some potential language generated by Leadership and action items for the team. 

• Leadership was charged with developing revised text for the Global Change based on the following clauses:

1. They will consider whether, when, and where to use the phrase “existing IDN gTLD from the 2012 round” and,
2. Consider the approach with regard to the statement led by the asterisk “* Preliminary Recommendation xx only impacts existing IDN gTLDs from the 2012 round”.

1. The language included deleting “IDN” and “2012 round”. It also includes the use of “existing” when referring to all of the gTLDs that have been delegated in the root zone and removing the statement led by asterisk and emphasizing similar messaging in the rationale. These were undertaken for various reasons, including future-proofing updates to the RZ-LGR, accommodate current gTLDs in the root zone, limit misinterpretation, and remain in the boundaries of the recommendations. 

• Examples were provided for recommendations 1.1, 2.1, 3.10, and 3.11. 
• Exceptions were also provided for recommendations 3.14 and 3.15.

1. The rationale for these exceptions included compensating a specific group of 2012 applicants that included Arabic and Chinese gTLD Registry Operators that have been unable to fulfill their interests or needs due to the unavailability of variant labels, and to remain consistent with RySG input.

• There was also rationale provided for specific parked recommendations (recommendations 7.3 and 7.4) that are not applicable to be changed at this time due to public comment from ICANN org and CCWP-HR that would require substantive amendments. 

• The chair shared that they are “Looking for ‘in principle’ support (or not) that would allow us to develop revised text that will be sent to the group for the two week consideration period.” 

• Assent was given in chat for in principle support
• ACTION ITEM: Leadership will develop revised text for the Global Change based on the following principles:

1. Delete “IDN”
2. Delete “2012 Round”
3. Use “existing” when referring to all of the gTLDs that have been delegated in the root zone
4. Remove the statement led by the asterisk and emphasize the indeed messaging in rationale

• AOB (3 minutes)

• The chair once again congratulated the team, previewed the second level charter questions for the next meeting, and adjourned the meeting