Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting
Dear All, In preparation for the Monday, 3 April meeting, please find below the documents for your review and input, especially the ones under 1b, 2a, and 2b. 1. Draft Sections of the Phase 1 Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nD-a82Bx_JIYzWcZwBQcD61Aqn_yBPQMVr1l3EpZ... * You can find all draft sections of the Initial Report from the table of contents here i. Section 4, Annex C, and Annex E will be completed right before circulation of the full report to the EPDP Team ii. Staff plan to provide an overview of all these draft sections during the Monday meeting * Please specifically focus on the review of the following sections, as EPDP Team’s input are expected be discussed on Monday: i. Section 3 Glossary ii. Section 4 Introduction section to the Preliminary Recommendations iii. Section 5 Differences Between EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4 Preliminary Recommendations * Leadership team may provide more substantive edits before the call 1. Redline and highlighted draft text that needs to be closed off: * A3 (pp.3-6): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... * D1b (pp.4-10): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. Please focus on the review of the revised Rec 2.25 and 2.29, and the rationale for Rec 2.7, 2.24-2.27, and 2.29 * B4 (Rec 2.13, p.4): https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w... i. We missed to address the leadership comment during yesterday’s call * D8 (Rec 2.18, pp.17-18): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. We missed to address the updated text during yesterday’s call * A9 (Rec 1.12, p.17): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... i. The definition of the label states may need to be incorporated in the recommendation language based on agreement on the glossary In addition, on 16 March 2023, the ICANN Board adopted a substantial portion of the SubPro PDP Outputs. The Outputs adopted by the ICANN Board include all the IDN recommendations in Topic 25 of the SubPro PDP Final Report. See details here: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re.... This should have minimum impact on the EPDP preliminary recommendations, as our recommendations are consistent or align with the SubPro recommendations. Thank you all for your efforts for the final push. Have a nice weekend! Best Regards, Ariel
Dear All, As noted in the previous email, Donna has developed a new version of “Section 5: Differences Between EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4 Preliminary Recommendations”. Please find the word document attached. During Monday’s meeting, this new version will be discussed. In addition, please note that Justine has provided some new redline and alternative text under A3, especially in the response to charter questions. They will also be discussed during the Monday meeting. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 at 11:29 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting Dear All, In preparation for the Monday, 3 April meeting, please find below the documents for your review and input, especially the ones under 1b, 2a, and 2b. 1. Draft Sections of the Phase 1 Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nD-a82Bx_JIYzWcZwBQcD61Aqn_yBPQMVr1l3EpZ... * You can find all draft sections of the Initial Report from the table of contents here i. Section 4, Annex C, and Annex E will be completed right before circulation of the full report to the EPDP Team ii. Staff plan to provide an overview of all these draft sections during the Monday meeting * Please specifically focus on the review of the following sections, as EPDP Team’s input are expected be discussed on Monday: i. Section 3 Glossary ii. Section 4 Introduction section to the Preliminary Recommendations iii. Section 5 Differences Between EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4 Preliminary Recommendations * Leadership team may provide more substantive edits before the call 1. Redline and highlighted draft text that needs to be closed off: * A3 (pp.3-6): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... * D1b (pp.4-10): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. Please focus on the review of the revised Rec 2.25 and 2.29, and the rationale for Rec 2.7, 2.24-2.27, and 2.29 * B4 (Rec 2.13, p.4): https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w... i. We missed to address the leadership comment during yesterday’s call * D8 (Rec 2.18, pp.17-18): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. We missed to address the updated text during yesterday’s call * A9 (Rec 1.12, p.17): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... i. The definition of the label states may need to be incorporated in the recommendation language based on agreement on the glossary In addition, on 16 March 2023, the ICANN Board adopted a substantial portion of the SubPro PDP Outputs. The Outputs adopted by the ICANN Board include all the IDN recommendations in Topic 25 of the SubPro PDP Final Report. See details here: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re.... This should have minimum impact on the EPDP preliminary recommendations, as our recommendations are consistent or align with the SubPro recommendations. Thank you all for your efforts for the final push. Have a nice weekend! Best Regards, Ariel
Hi Team I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that Justine and I have been reviewing documents over the weekend and today. I want to draw to your attention that there has been changes to documents posted by Ariel previously, most notably recommendation 1.2 under A3; and 2.25 and 2.29 under D1b. You may recall that during our discussions last week about application fees, we agreed that an applicant may be subject to additional fees across multiple rounds if the cumulative number of allocatable variants they apply for exceeds [x]. As I reviewed the recommendation language earlier today on this matter, I found it difficult to justify such a recommendation because an applicant for allocatable variant label in future rounds will still need to pay the base application fee. If they are only applying for one variant label and that variant label takes them above the threshold of [x] for a previously applied-for and delegated primary gTLD, it seems hard to justify what could be an automatic additional fee. I’ve made notes in the draft to that effect, but I would welcome input from others. Kind regards Donna From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 1:29 am To: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting Dear All, In preparation for the Monday, 3 April meeting, please find below the documents for your review and input, especially the ones under 1b, 2a, and 2b. 1. Draft Sections of the Phase 1 Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nD-a82Bx_JIYzWcZwBQcD61Aqn_yBPQMVr1l3EpZ... * You can find all draft sections of the Initial Report from the table of contents here i. Section 4, Annex C, and Annex E will be completed right before circulation of the full report to the EPDP Team ii. Staff plan to provide an overview of all these draft sections during the Monday meeting * Please specifically focus on the review of the following sections, as EPDP Team’s input are expected be discussed on Monday: i. Section 3 Glossary ii. Section 4 Introduction section to the Preliminary Recommendations iii. Section 5 Differences Between EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4 Preliminary Recommendations * Leadership team may provide more substantive edits before the call 1. Redline and highlighted draft text that needs to be closed off: * A3 (pp.3-6): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... * D1b (pp.4-10): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. Please focus on the review of the revised Rec 2.25 and 2.29, and the rationale for Rec 2.7, 2.24-2.27, and 2.29 * B4 (Rec 2.13, p.4): https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w... i. We missed to address the leadership comment during yesterday’s call * D8 (Rec 2.18, pp.17-18): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... i. We missed to address the updated text during yesterday’s call * A9 (Rec 1.12, p.17): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... i. The definition of the label states may need to be incorporated in the recommendation language based on agreement on the glossary In addition, on 16 March 2023, the ICANN Board adopted a substantial portion of the SubPro PDP Outputs. The Outputs adopted by the ICANN Board include all the IDN recommendations in Topic 25 of the SubPro PDP Final Report. See details here: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re.... This should have minimum impact on the EPDP preliminary recommendations, as our recommendations are consistent or align with the SubPro recommendations. Thank you all for your efforts for the final push. Have a nice weekend! Best Regards, Ariel
Hi Donna, thanks to you, Justine, and Ariel for the extra weekend work you put into this project. On 03.04.2023 05:30, Donna austin wrote:
Hi Team
I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that Justine and I have been reviewing documents over the weekend and today. I want to draw to your attention that there has been changes to documents posted by Ariel previously, most notably recommendation 1.2 under A3; and 2.25 and 2.29 under D1b.
You may recall that during our discussions last week about application fees, we agreed that an applicant may be subject to additional fees across multiple rounds if the cumulative number of allocatable variants they apply for exceeds [x]. As I reviewed the recommendation language earlier today on this matter, I found it difficult to justify such a recommendation because an applicant for allocatable variant label in future rounds will still need to pay the base application fee. If they are only applying for one variant label and that variant label takes them above the threshold of [x] for a previously applied-for and delegated primary gTLD, it seems hard to justify what could be an automatic additional fee. I’ve made notes in the draft to that effect, but I would welcome input from others.
there are two questions I'd like rise and discuss in this context and suggest a solution. For the future, take [x] as the number of "free" variants when a new gTLD label is applied for. 1. Do the free labels carry over to future rounds? If you applied for 1 variant first, will you be able to get [x-1] variants for free in the next round? My suggestion is: no, because this causes some overhead in work that the application should pay. 2. Is the price of adding variants to an existing TLD the same as applying for whole new TLD? My suggestion is: no, because it's (presumably) far more involved to start a new TLD application than to add some variants to an existing application. See attached document for a suggestion with some examples (sorry that it does not look as beautiful as Ariel's documents). In my opinion, this solution best reflects the cost-recovery paradigm, while at the same time it does not charge every single variant, which would discourage the use of variants. Happy to discuss this in today's call. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
Dear Donna, I think your observations are correct and I support the same. With best regards, Anil Kumar Jain CEO, NIXI [ https://rashtragaan.in/ ] From: DonnaAustin605@hotmail.com To: "ariel liang" <ariel.liang@icann.org>, gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:00:27 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting Hi Team I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that Justine and I have been reviewing documents over the weekend and today. I want to draw to your attention that there has been changes to documents posted by Ariel previously, most notably recommendation 1.2 under A3; and 2.25 and 2.29 under D1b. You may recall that during our discussions last week about application fees, we agreed that an applicant may be subject to additional fees across multiple rounds if the cumulative number of allocatable variants they apply for exceeds [x]. As I reviewed the recommendation language earlier today on this matter, I found it difficult to justify such a recommendation because an applicant for allocatable variant label in future rounds will still need to pay the base application fee. If they are only applying for one variant label and that variant label takes them above the threshold of [x] for a previously applied-for and delegated primary gTLD, it seems hard to justify what could be an automatic additional fee. I’ve made notes in the draft to that effect, but I would welcome input from others. Kind regards Donna From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 1:29 am To: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting Dear All, In preparation for the Monday, 3 April meeting, please find below the documents for your review and input, especially the ones under 1b, 2a, and 2b . 1. Draft Sections of the Phase 1 Initial Report: [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nD-a82Bx_JIYzWcZwBQcD61Aqn_yBPQMVr1l3EpZ... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nD-a82Bx_JIYzWcZwBQcD61Aqn_yBPQMVr1l3EpZ... ] 2. 1. You can find all draft sections of the Initial Report from the table of contents here i. Section 4, Annex C, and Annex E will be completed right before circulation of the full report to the EPDP Team ii. Staff plan to provide an overview of all these draft sections during the Monday meeting 1. 1. Please specifically focus on the review of the following sections , as EPDP Team’s input are expected be discussed on Monday: i. Section 3 Glossary ii. Section 4 Introduction section to the Preliminary Recommendations iii. Section 5 Differences Between EPDP-IDNs and ccPDP4 Preliminary Recommendations 1. 1. 1. 1. Leadership team may provide more substantive edits before the call 2. Redline and highlighted draft text that needs to be closed off: 3. 1. A3 (pp.3-6): [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... ] 2. D1b (pp.4-10): [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... ] i. Please focus on the review of the revised Rec 2.25 and 2.29 , and the rationale for Rec 2.7, 2.24-2.27, and 2.29 1. 1. B4 (Rec 2.13, p.4): [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3w... ] i. We missed to address the leadership comment during yesterday’s call 1. 1. D8 (Rec 2.18, pp.17-18): [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH... ] i. We missed to address the updated text during yesterday’s call 1. 1. A9 (Rec 1.12, p.17): [ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2L... ] i. The definition of the label states may need to be incorporated in the recommendation language based on agreement on the glossary In addition, on 16 March 2023, the ICANN Board adopted a substantial portion of the SubPro PDP Outputs. The Outputs adopted by the ICANN Board include all the IDN recommendations in Topic 25 of the SubPro PDP Final Report. See details here: [ https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re... | https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re... ] . This should have minimum impact on the EPDP preliminary recommendations, as our recommendations are consistent or align with the SubPro recommendations. Thank you all for your efforts for the final push. Have a nice weekend! Best Regards, Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
participants (4)
-
Ariel Liang -
CEO NIXI -
Donna austin -
Michael Bauland