Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] [Ext] 回复: REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Hello Zuan, Thank you so much for taking the time and conducting a thorough review of the report! Please see my respond to the points you noted below. Welcome Donna, Justine, and others to chime in as well. 1. Page 34 – the typo has been fixed. Thank you. 1. Page 35 – The proposed revision to the sentence is as follows: “Except for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already limited the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable).” Similar revision has been applied on page 77, the first bullet point under rationale for rec 8.1, as well as page 98, analysis for difference no.2. 1. Page 32 – Rec 3.11-3.14 In summary, staff understood that the agreed points are as follows: * Discounted base application fee MUST apply when variant labels, no matter how many, are applied for separately from the primary label * ONE-TIME WAIVER for base application fee applies to existing ROs from 2012 round when up to 4 variant labels are applied for in the NEXT ROUND * Additional fees MAY apply when more than 4 variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately As such, staff is proposing the following refinement of Rec 3.11-3.14 (revised portion highlighted in yellow) * Rec 3.11 (text unchanged) A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and up to four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels during an application round must incur the same base application fee as any gTLD applicant who does not apply for variant labels in that round. * Rec 3.12-3.13, order switched * Rec 3.12 (text unchanged): A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. * Rec 3.13: An application for more than four (4) of a primary IDN gTLD string’s allocatable variant labels may incur additional fees that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any additional costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. * Note: previously the rec started with “A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and more than four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels in an application…”; this revision attempts to make it clear that when more than four variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately, may incur additional fees. * Rec 3.14: first paragraph text unchanged; second and third paragraphs have switched order to align with Rec 3.12 and Rec 3.13 As a one-time exception for the immediate next application round, the base application fee for up to four (4) allocatable variant labels of an existing IDN gTLD applied for by its existing registry operator from the 2012 round will be waived. If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.12. If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in an application during any round, that application may incur additional fees as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. * Note: The second paragraph previously included the phrase “may incur” with regard to discounted base application fee; it has been updated to “must incur”. The third paragraph previously included the phrase “in the immediate next application round”; it has been updated to “in an application during any round”. Thank you! Ariel From: Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:48 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] 回复: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear all, Thanks to Donna, Justine and staff, without your leadership and support work, the Phase 1 Initial Report would not be done. After reviewed the whole Initial Report, I have the following observations: 1.Page 34, the last paragraph “since the delegation of gTLD variant labels will be a new and……….”, is it a typo? If it is, should it be revised as “will be new”? 2. Page 35, Rationale for Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14 It is mentioned that “[s]ince the EPDP Team decided not to impose a ceiling value for the delegated top-level variant labels”, while in the next paragraph, it is mentioned that “[e]xcept for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already put a ceiling value (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”. It might be confusing by first mentioning “not to impose a ceiling value” and later “already put a ceiling value”. As a matter of fact, the language communities of the other six scripts proposed a threshold number of variants, which was the threshold number for deciding whether to charge base application fee or not. So it might be revised as “the language communities of the other six scripts have already proposed a threshold number (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit excessive number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”, just to be aligned with (Page 36, the second paragraph) “[t]he EPDP Team recommends this threshold number based on the known upper bound for allocatable variant labels permitted by the RZ-LGR for the scripts that have allocatable variant labels (with the exception of Arabic)”. 3.Page 32 {Preliminary Recommendation 3.13: A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. Preliminary Recommendation 3.14: If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application may incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. } When I read the above recommendations, I find some ambiguities regarding the discounted base application fee. Does the discounted base application fee apply to all of the variants applied separately by both future applicants and existing registry operators in a separate round rather than the round in which they applied for primary gTLDs? If it applies, in this scenario, is there any number limit of applied-for variants? In other words, is it the scenario that no matter how many variants are applied for, future applicants and existing registry operators might only pay a discounted base application fee? If there is no number limit of variants in the above scenario, there are no ambiguities of the recommendations. But in order to be aligned with the spirit of the proposed threshold number (4) of variants for one gTLD, I would suggest proposing the same number limit (i.e. 4 variants) in the above scenario to avoid excessive applications of variants for one gTLD. My two cents. Congratulations to all for achieving this milestone. Best Regards Zuan ________________________________ 发件人: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> 代表 Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> 发送时间: 2023年4月11日 0:06 收件人: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> 主题: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear All, This is a friendly reminder to review the draft Phase 1 Initial Report by EOB Tuesday, 11 April. As per instruction from the leadership team, please share on list if you come across any typos or minor issues that must be fixed. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:12 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear All, On behalf of the EPDP Team leadership, we are sending the draft Phase 1 Initial Report for your approval by EOB Tuesday, 11 April. Please see the message from Donna and Justine below. == Dear Team Congratulations! We did it! Attached is the Initial Report for Phase 1 that we intend to post for public comment by the end of the month. If you have time to review please do and let us know if you come across any typos or minor issue. However, please note that at this stage of the process the Leadership Team has agreed that it is too late for substantive changes. We intend to publish the report for the minimum comment period of 42 days. However, if we receive requests to extend the duration we will certainly consider it. On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to thank everyone in the Team for your respective contributions and dedication that got us to this point. I appreciate these efforts can become tedious and at times hard to maintain interest so sincere thanks for sticking with us. I know we still have work to do, quite a bit as it turns out, but we now have a good chunk of it behind us. Buy yourself a drink, or chocolate or ice cream to celebrate 🎉 We’re going to take a mini-break and when we come back on 20 April we’ll start what will largely be an administrative discussion about how to tackle Phase 2. And also just a heads up that I have requested 4 sessions at ICANN77 and I hope to have some news to share in that regard. Big thanks to our support team of Ariel, Emily and Steve. Where would we be without Ariel’s presentations 😀. And thanks to Sarmad and Pitinan for your expertise and analysis of data that has been so helpful to our consideration of the charter questions. Special mention to our Board Liaisons Edmon and Alan as well for their contributions; and Michael Karakash for joining the calls. Have a great weekend. We’ll see you in a couple of weeks. Donna and Justine == As an additional note, policy staff are in process compiling content for Annex E (EPDP Team membership and attendance), and it will be ready before the report is submitted to ICANN org for processing. We will also discuss with the leadership team regarding any new input received on the D1b draft text circulated yesterday. From the staff team, a BIG THANKS to Donna and Justine for their diligence, kindness, and leadership. And congratulations to everyone for the great work done! It has been an amazing journey and we have come a long way together! Best Regards, Ariel, Emily, Steve
Dear All, The leadership team and staff met today to discuss the issues raised by Zuan regarding Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14. Please find attached the PDF document that provides the proposed revision to enhance the clarity of the recommendations, as well as their rationale. The proposed revision is consistent with staff’s suggestion shared previously on list and should have addressed Zuan’s questions. Per leadership team’s direction, Rec 3.11-Rec 3.14 in the Initial Report will be updated accordingly, and the public comment related materials will be sent to ICANN org for processing asap. Thank you all for your review and contribution! Staff will keep the group posted when the public comment is officially launched. Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM To: Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] [Ext] 回复: REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Hello Zuan, Thank you so much for taking the time and conducting a thorough review of the report! Please see my respond to the points you noted below. Welcome Donna, Justine, and others to chime in as well. 1. Page 34 – the typo has been fixed. Thank you. 1. Page 35 – The proposed revision to the sentence is as follows: “Except for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already limited the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable).” Similar revision has been applied on page 77, the first bullet point under rationale for rec 8.1, as well as page 98, analysis for difference no.2. 1. Page 32 – Rec 3.11-3.14 In summary, staff understood that the agreed points are as follows: * Discounted base application fee MUST apply when variant labels, no matter how many, are applied for separately from the primary label * ONE-TIME WAIVER for base application fee applies to existing ROs from 2012 round when up to 4 variant labels are applied for in the NEXT ROUND * Additional fees MAY apply when more than 4 variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately As such, staff is proposing the following refinement of Rec 3.11-3.14 (revised portion highlighted in yellow) * Rec 3.11 (text unchanged) A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and up to four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels during an application round must incur the same base application fee as any gTLD applicant who does not apply for variant labels in that round. * Rec 3.12-3.13, order switched * Rec 3.12 (text unchanged): A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. * Rec 3.13: An application for more than four (4) of a primary IDN gTLD string’s allocatable variant labels may incur additional fees that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any additional costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. * Note: previously the rec started with “A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and more than four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels in an application…”; this revision attempts to make it clear that when more than four variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately, may incur additional fees. * Rec 3.14: first paragraph text unchanged; second and third paragraphs have switched order to align with Rec 3.12 and Rec 3.13 As a one-time exception for the immediate next application round, the base application fee for up to four (4) allocatable variant labels of an existing IDN gTLD applied for by its existing registry operator from the 2012 round will be waived. If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.12. If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in an application during any round, that application may incur additional fees as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. * Note: The second paragraph previously included the phrase “may incur” with regard to discounted base application fee; it has been updated to “must incur”. The third paragraph previously included the phrase “in the immediate next application round”; it has been updated to “in an application during any round”. Thank you! Ariel From: Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:48 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] 回复: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear all, Thanks to Donna, Justine and staff, without your leadership and support work, the Phase 1 Initial Report would not be done. After reviewed the whole Initial Report, I have the following observations: 1.Page 34, the last paragraph “since the delegation of gTLD variant labels will be a new and……….”, is it a typo? If it is, should it be revised as “will be new”? 2. Page 35, Rationale for Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14 It is mentioned that “[s]ince the EPDP Team decided not to impose a ceiling value for the delegated top-level variant labels”, while in the next paragraph, it is mentioned that “[e]xcept for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already put a ceiling value (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”. It might be confusing by first mentioning “not to impose a ceiling value” and later “already put a ceiling value”. As a matter of fact, the language communities of the other six scripts proposed a threshold number of variants, which was the threshold number for deciding whether to charge base application fee or not. So it might be revised as “the language communities of the other six scripts have already proposed a threshold number (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit excessive number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”, just to be aligned with (Page 36, the second paragraph) “[t]he EPDP Team recommends this threshold number based on the known upper bound for allocatable variant labels permitted by the RZ-LGR for the scripts that have allocatable variant labels (with the exception of Arabic)”. 3.Page 32 {Preliminary Recommendation 3.13: A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. Preliminary Recommendation 3.14: If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application may incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. } When I read the above recommendations, I find some ambiguities regarding the discounted base application fee. Does the discounted base application fee apply to all of the variants applied separately by both future applicants and existing registry operators in a separate round rather than the round in which they applied for primary gTLDs? If it applies, in this scenario, is there any number limit of applied-for variants? In other words, is it the scenario that no matter how many variants are applied for, future applicants and existing registry operators might only pay a discounted base application fee? If there is no number limit of variants in the above scenario, there are no ambiguities of the recommendations. But in order to be aligned with the spirit of the proposed threshold number (4) of variants for one gTLD, I would suggest proposing the same number limit (i.e. 4 variants) in the above scenario to avoid excessive applications of variants for one gTLD. My two cents. Congratulations to all for achieving this milestone. Best Regards Zuan ________________________________ 发件人: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> 代表 Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> 发送时间: 2023年4月11日 0:06 收件人: gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> 主题: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear All, This is a friendly reminder to review the draft Phase 1 Initial Report by EOB Tuesday, 11 April. As per instruction from the leadership team, please share on list if you come across any typos or minor issues that must be fixed. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:12 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April Dear All, On behalf of the EPDP Team leadership, we are sending the draft Phase 1 Initial Report for your approval by EOB Tuesday, 11 April. Please see the message from Donna and Justine below. == Dear Team Congratulations! We did it! Attached is the Initial Report for Phase 1 that we intend to post for public comment by the end of the month. If you have time to review please do and let us know if you come across any typos or minor issue. However, please note that at this stage of the process the Leadership Team has agreed that it is too late for substantive changes. We intend to publish the report for the minimum comment period of 42 days. However, if we receive requests to extend the duration we will certainly consider it. On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to thank everyone in the Team for your respective contributions and dedication that got us to this point. I appreciate these efforts can become tedious and at times hard to maintain interest so sincere thanks for sticking with us. I know we still have work to do, quite a bit as it turns out, but we now have a good chunk of it behind us. Buy yourself a drink, or chocolate or ice cream to celebrate 🎉 We’re going to take a mini-break and when we come back on 20 April we’ll start what will largely be an administrative discussion about how to tackle Phase 2. And also just a heads up that I have requested 4 sessions at ICANN77 and I hope to have some news to share in that regard. Big thanks to our support team of Ariel, Emily and Steve. Where would we be without Ariel’s presentations 😀. And thanks to Sarmad and Pitinan for your expertise and analysis of data that has been so helpful to our consideration of the charter questions. Special mention to our Board Liaisons Edmon and Alan as well for their contributions; and Michael Karakash for joining the calls. Have a great weekend. We’ll see you in a couple of weeks. Donna and Justine == As an additional note, policy staff are in process compiling content for Annex E (EPDP Team membership and attendance), and it will be ready before the report is submitted to ICANN org for processing. We will also discuss with the leadership team regarding any new input received on the D1b draft text circulated yesterday. From the staff team, a BIG THANKS to Donna and Justine for their diligence, kindness, and leadership. And congratulations to everyone for the great work done! It has been an amazing journey and we have come a long way together! Best Regards, Ariel, Emily, Steve
Good afternoon This is very good news; I had drafted an email with comments but lost it..... The only real point I was going to make was the use of "must" in many of the recommendations (not least those on charging issues) whereas "should" is often used in Recommendations; but am sure there is good reason for this; best Nigel ; On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 15:38, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
The leadership team and staff met today to discuss the issues raised by Zuan regarding *Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14*. Please find attached the PDF document that provides the proposed revision to enhance the clarity of the recommendations, as well as their rationale. The proposed revision is consistent with staff’s suggestion shared previously on list and should have addressed Zuan’s questions.
Per leadership team’s direction, Rec 3.11-Rec 3.14 in the Initial Report will be updated accordingly, and the public comment related materials will be sent to ICANN org for processing asap.
Thank you all for your review and contribution! Staff will keep the group posted when the public comment is officially launched.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM *To: *Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com>, " gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] [Ext] 回复: REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Hello Zuan,
Thank you so much for taking the time and conducting a thorough review of the report!
Please see my respond to the points you noted below. Welcome Donna, Justine, and others to chime in as well.
1. Page 34 – the typo has been fixed. Thank you.
1. Page 35 – The proposed revision to the sentence is as follows: “*Except for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already limited the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable)*.” Similar revision has been applied on page 77, the first bullet point under rationale for rec 8.1, as well as page 98, analysis for difference no.2.
1. Page 32 – Rec 3.11-3.14
In summary, staff understood that the agreed points are as follows:
- Discounted base application fee MUST apply when variant labels, no matter how many, are applied for separately from the primary label - ONE-TIME WAIVER for base application fee applies to existing ROs from 2012 round when up to 4 variant labels are applied for in the NEXT ROUND - Additional fees MAY apply when more than 4 variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately
As such, staff is proposing the following refinement of *Rec 3.11-3.14* (revised portion highlighted in yellow)
- *Rec 3.11* (text unchanged)
*A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and up to four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels during an application round must incur the same base application fee as any gTLD applicant who does not apply for variant labels in that round.*
- *Rec 3.12-3.13, order switched *
- *Rec 3.12* (text unchanged):
*A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle.*
- *Rec 3.13*:
*An application for more than four (4) of a primary IDN gTLD string’s allocatable variant labels may incur additional fees that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any additional costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. *
- Note: previously the rec started with “A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and more than four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels in an application…”; this revision attempts to make it clear that when more than four variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately, may incur additional fees.
- *Rec 3.14: *first paragraph text unchanged; second and third paragraphs have switched order to align with Rec 3.12 and Rec 3.13
*As a one-time exception for the immediate next application round, the base application fee for up to four (4) allocatable variant labels of an existing IDN gTLD applied for by its existing registry operator from the 2012 round will be waived. *
*If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.12.*
*If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in an application during any round, that application may incur additional fees as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13.*
- Note: The second paragraph previously included the phrase “may incur” with regard to discounted base application fee; it has been updated to “must incur”. The third paragraph previously included the phrase “in the immediate next application round”; it has been updated to “in an application during any round”.
Thank you!
Ariel
*From: *Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:48 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] 回复: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear all,
Thanks to Donna, Justine and staff, without your leadership and support work, the Phase 1 Initial Report would not be done.
After reviewed the whole Initial Report, I have the following observations:
*1.Page 34, the last paragraph *
“*since the delegation of gTLD variant labels will be a new and……….*”, is it a typo? If it is, should it be revised as “will be new”?
*2. Page 35, Rationale for Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14 *
It is mentioned that “*[s]ince the EPDP Team decided not to impose a ceiling value for the delegated top-level variant labels*”, while in the next paragraph, it is mentioned that “*[e]xcept for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already put a ceiling value (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”*.
It might be confusing by first mentioning “*not to impose a ceiling value” *and later “*already put a ceiling value*”. As a matter of fact, the language communities of the other six scripts proposed a threshold number of variants, which was the threshold number for deciding whether to charge base application fee or not.
So it might be revised as “the language communities of the other six scripts have already proposed a threshold number (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit excessive number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”, just to be aligned with (Page 36, the second paragraph) “*[t]he EPDP Team recommends this threshold number based on the known upper bound for allocatable variant labels permitted by the RZ-LGR for the scripts that have allocatable variant labels (with the exception of Arabic)*”.
*3.Page 32 *
*{Preliminary Recommendation 3.13: A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. *
*Preliminary Recommendation 3.14: If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application may incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. }*
When I read the above recommendations, I find some ambiguities regarding the discounted base application fee.
Does the discounted base application fee apply to all of the variants applied separately by both future applicants and existing registry operators in a separate round rather than the round in which they applied for primary gTLDs? If it applies, in this scenario, is there any number limit of applied-for variants? In other words, is it the scenario that no matter how many variants are applied for, future applicants and existing registry operators might only pay a discounted base application fee?
If there is no number limit of variants in the above scenario, there are no ambiguities of the recommendations.
But in order to be aligned with the spirit of the proposed threshold number (4) of variants for one gTLD, I would suggest proposing the same number limit (i.e. 4 variants) in the above scenario to avoid excessive applications of variants for one gTLD.
My two cents.
Congratulations to all for achieving this milestone.
Best Regards
Zuan
------------------------------
*发**件人:* Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> 代表 Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *发**送**时间:* 2023年4月11日 0:06 *收件人:* gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *主**题:* [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear All,
This is a friendly reminder to review the draft Phase 1 Initial Report by *EOB Tuesday, 11 April*. As per instruction from the leadership team, please share on list if you come across any typos or minor issues that must be fixed.
Thank you,
Ariel
*From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:12 PM *To: *"gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear All,
On behalf of the EPDP Team leadership, we are sending the draft Phase 1 Initial Report for your approval by *EOB Tuesday, 11 April*. Please see the message from Donna and Justine below.
==
Dear Team
Congratulations! We did it!
Attached is the Initial Report for Phase 1 that we intend to post for public comment by the end of the month. If you have time to review please do and let us know if you come across any typos or minor issue. However, please note that at this stage of the process the Leadership Team has agreed that it is too late for substantive changes.
We intend to publish the report for the minimum comment period of 42 days. However, if we receive requests to extend the duration we will certainly consider it.
On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to thank everyone in the Team for your respective contributions and dedication that got us to this point. I appreciate these efforts can become tedious and at times hard to maintain interest so sincere thanks for sticking with us.
I know we still have work to do, quite a bit as it turns out, but we now have a good chunk of it behind us. Buy yourself a drink, or chocolate or ice cream to celebrate 🎉
We’re going to take a mini-break and when we come back on 20 April we’ll start what will largely be an administrative discussion about how to tackle Phase 2. And also just a heads up that I have requested 4 sessions at ICANN77 and I hope to have some news to share in that regard.
Big thanks to our support team of Ariel, Emily and Steve. Where would we be without Ariel’s presentations 😀. And thanks to Sarmad and Pitinan for your expertise and analysis of data that has been so helpful to our consideration of the charter questions. Special mention to our Board Liaisons Edmon and Alan as well for their contributions; and Michael Karakash for joining the calls.
Have a great weekend. We’ll see you in a couple of weeks.
Donna and Justine
==
As an additional note, policy staff are in process compiling content for Annex E (EPDP Team membership and attendance), and it will be ready before the report is submitted to ICANN org for processing. We will also discuss with the leadership team regarding any new input received on the D1b draft text circulated yesterday.
From the staff team, a BIG THANKS to Donna and Justine for their diligence, kindness, and leadership. And congratulations to everyone for the great work done! It has been an amazing journey and we have come a long way together!
Best Regards,
Ariel, Emily, Steve
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
Hello Nigel, I believe we are following the PDP policy recommendation drafting practice of using "must" to indicate that something must happen, whereas "should" is to indicate something could but may not necessarily happen. Kind regards, Justine On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 17:40, Nigel Hickson via Gnso-epdp-idn-team < gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> wrote:
Good afternoon
This is very good news; I had drafted an email with comments but lost it.....
The only real point I was going to make was the use of "must" in many of the recommendations (not least those on charging issues) whereas "should" is often used in Recommendations; but am sure there is good reason for this;
best
Nigel ;
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 15:38, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
The leadership team and staff met today to discuss the issues raised by Zuan regarding *Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14*. Please find attached the PDF document that provides the proposed revision to enhance the clarity of the recommendations, as well as their rationale. The proposed revision is consistent with staff’s suggestion shared previously on list and should have addressed Zuan’s questions.
Per leadership team’s direction, Rec 3.11-Rec 3.14 in the Initial Report will be updated accordingly, and the public comment related materials will be sent to ICANN org for processing asap.
Thank you all for your review and contribution! Staff will keep the group posted when the public comment is officially launched.
Best Regards,
Ariel
*From: *Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:17 AM *To: *Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com>, " gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] [Ext] 回复: REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Hello Zuan,
Thank you so much for taking the time and conducting a thorough review of the report!
Please see my respond to the points you noted below. Welcome Donna, Justine, and others to chime in as well.
1. Page 34 – the typo has been fixed. Thank you.
1. Page 35 – The proposed revision to the sentence is as follows: “*Except for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already limited the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable)*.” Similar revision has been applied on page 77, the first bullet point under rationale for rec 8.1, as well as page 98, analysis for difference no.2.
1. Page 32 – Rec 3.11-3.14
In summary, staff understood that the agreed points are as follows:
- Discounted base application fee MUST apply when variant labels, no matter how many, are applied for separately from the primary label - ONE-TIME WAIVER for base application fee applies to existing ROs from 2012 round when up to 4 variant labels are applied for in the NEXT ROUND - Additional fees MAY apply when more than 4 variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately
As such, staff is proposing the following refinement of *Rec 3.11-3.14* (revised portion highlighted in yellow)
- *Rec 3.11* (text unchanged)
*A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and up to four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels during an application round must incur the same base application fee as any gTLD applicant who does not apply for variant labels in that round.*
- *Rec 3.12-3.13, order switched *
- *Rec 3.12* (text unchanged):
*A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle.*
- *Rec 3.13*:
*An application for more than four (4) of a primary IDN gTLD string’s allocatable variant labels may incur additional fees that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any additional costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. *
- Note: previously the rec started with “A future IDN gTLD applicant applying for a primary IDN gTLD string and more than four (4) of that string’s allocatable variant labels in an application…”; this revision attempts to make it clear that when more than four variant labels are applied for in an application, whether together with the primary string or separately, may incur additional fees.
- *Rec 3.14: *first paragraph text unchanged; second and third paragraphs have switched order to align with Rec 3.12 and Rec 3.13
*As a one-time exception for the immediate next application round, the base application fee for up to four (4) allocatable variant labels of an existing IDN gTLD applied for by its existing registry operator from the 2012 round will be waived. *
*If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application must incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.12.*
*If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for more than four (4) allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in an application during any round, that application may incur additional fees as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13.*
- Note: The second paragraph previously included the phrase “may incur” with regard to discounted base application fee; it has been updated to “must incur”. The third paragraph previously included the phrase “in the immediate next application round”; it has been updated to “in an application during any round”.
Thank you!
Ariel
*From: *Zhang Zuan <zuanzhangpetergreen@hotmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:48 AM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] 回复: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear all,
Thanks to Donna, Justine and staff, without your leadership and support work, the Phase 1 Initial Report would not be done.
After reviewed the whole Initial Report, I have the following observations:
*1.Page 34, the last paragraph *
“*since the delegation of gTLD variant labels will be a new and……….*”, is it a typo? If it is, should it be revised as “will be new”?
*2. Page 35, Rationale for Preliminary Recommendation 3.11-3.14 *
It is mentioned that “*[s]ince the EPDP Team decided not to impose a ceiling value for the delegated top-level variant labels*”, while in the next paragraph, it is mentioned that “*[e]xcept for Arabic, the language communities of the other six scripts have already put a ceiling value (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit the number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”*.
It might be confusing by first mentioning “*not to impose a ceiling value” *and later “*already put a ceiling value*”. As a matter of fact, the language communities of the other six scripts proposed a threshold number of variants, which was the threshold number for deciding whether to charge base application fee or not.
So it might be revised as “the language communities of the other six scripts have already proposed a threshold number (i.e., one to four variant labels of the primary label are allocatable) to limit excessive number of allocatable variant labels that can be applied for as gTLDs”, just to be aligned with (Page 36, the second paragraph) “*[t]he EPDP Team recommends this threshold number based on the known upper bound for allocatable variant labels permitted by the RZ-LGR for the scripts that have allocatable variant labels (with the exception of Arabic)*”.
*3.Page 32 *
*{Preliminary Recommendation 3.13: A future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant label(s) of its delegated primary IDN gTLD must incur a discounted base application fee that ICANN org considers to be proportional to any costs associated with evaluating the application and consistent with the cost recovery principle. *
*Preliminary Recommendation 3.14: If an existing registry operator from the 2012 round applies for allocatable variant labels of its existing IDN gTLD in any application round subsequent to the immediate next application round, that application may incur a discounted base application fee as any other future registry operators who apply only for allocatable variant labels, as set out in Preliminary Recommendation 3.13. }*
When I read the above recommendations, I find some ambiguities regarding the discounted base application fee.
Does the discounted base application fee apply to all of the variants applied separately by both future applicants and existing registry operators in a separate round rather than the round in which they applied for primary gTLDs? If it applies, in this scenario, is there any number limit of applied-for variants? In other words, is it the scenario that no matter how many variants are applied for, future applicants and existing registry operators might only pay a discounted base application fee?
If there is no number limit of variants in the above scenario, there are no ambiguities of the recommendations.
But in order to be aligned with the spirit of the proposed threshold number (4) of variants for one gTLD, I would suggest proposing the same number limit (i.e. 4 variants) in the above scenario to avoid excessive applications of variants for one gTLD.
My two cents.
Congratulations to all for achieving this milestone.
Best Regards
Zuan
------------------------------
*发**件人:* Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> 代表 Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *发**送**时间:* 2023年4月11日 0:06 *收件人:* gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *主**题:* [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER: Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear All,
This is a friendly reminder to review the draft Phase 1 Initial Report by *EOB Tuesday, 11 April*. As per instruction from the leadership team, please share on list if you come across any typos or minor issues that must be fixed.
Thank you,
Ariel
*From: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:12 PM *To: *"gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> *Subject: *Phase 1 Initial Report for Approval - by EOB Tuesday, 11 April
Dear All,
On behalf of the EPDP Team leadership, we are sending the draft Phase 1 Initial Report for your approval by *EOB Tuesday, 11 April*. Please see the message from Donna and Justine below.
==
Dear Team
Congratulations! We did it!
Attached is the Initial Report for Phase 1 that we intend to post for public comment by the end of the month. If you have time to review please do and let us know if you come across any typos or minor issue. However, please note that at this stage of the process the Leadership Team has agreed that it is too late for substantive changes.
We intend to publish the report for the minimum comment period of 42 days. However, if we receive requests to extend the duration we will certainly consider it.
On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to thank everyone in the Team for your respective contributions and dedication that got us to this point. I appreciate these efforts can become tedious and at times hard to maintain interest so sincere thanks for sticking with us.
I know we still have work to do, quite a bit as it turns out, but we now have a good chunk of it behind us. Buy yourself a drink, or chocolate or ice cream to celebrate 🎉
We’re going to take a mini-break and when we come back on 20 April we’ll start what will largely be an administrative discussion about how to tackle Phase 2. And also just a heads up that I have requested 4 sessions at ICANN77 and I hope to have some news to share in that regard.
Big thanks to our support team of Ariel, Emily and Steve. Where would we be without Ariel’s presentations 😀. And thanks to Sarmad and Pitinan for your expertise and analysis of data that has been so helpful to our consideration of the charter questions. Special mention to our Board Liaisons Edmon and Alan as well for their contributions; and Michael Karakash for joining the calls.
Have a great weekend. We’ll see you in a couple of weeks.
Donna and Justine
==
As an additional note, policy staff are in process compiling content for Annex E (EPDP Team membership and attendance), and it will be ready before the report is submitted to ICANN org for processing. We will also discuss with the leadership team regarding any new input received on the D1b draft text circulated yesterday.
From the staff team, a BIG THANKS to Donna and Justine for their diligence, kindness, and leadership. And congratulations to everyone for the great work done! It has been an amazing journey and we have come a long way together!
Best Regards,
Ariel, Emily, Steve
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
participants (3)
-
Ariel Liang -
Justine Chew -
Nigel Hickson