Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6
Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
Hi Ariel, I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation? Thanks, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
I found the ICANN Board’s response to SubPro’s Recommendations 24.3, 24.5 regarding singular/plural applications relevant to this conversation. The scorecard can be located in this link https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-actio... Dennis From: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:36 AM To: "ariel.liang@icann.org" <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Hi Ariel, I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation? Thanks, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
Hi Dennis Would it be possible for you to expand on how you think the ICANN Board’s response is relevant to our conversation around 3.5.4 and 3.6 please? Thanks Donna From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Date: Friday, 15 September 2023 at 5:42 am To: ariel.liang@icann.org <ariel.liang@icann.org>, gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 I found the ICANN Board’s response to SubPro’s Recommendations 24.3, 24.5 regarding singular/plural applications relevant to this conversation. The scorecard can be located in this link https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-actio... Dennis From: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:36 AM To: "ariel.liang@icann.org" <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Hi Ariel, I appreciate the effort put into revising 3.5.4, but I find the proposed revision very similar to the original question in that it’s subject to a variety of interpretations as to the what user-confusion might be. If there are specific scenarios that we want the applicant to address, I suggest we start there. Also important, how would an evaluator determine the score (pass or fail) of each response. Are we leaving this for implementation? Thanks, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Leadership Team Proposed Amendment to Rec 3.5 and IG 3.6 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting. Thank you! Ariel Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label: 3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD; 3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label; 3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and 3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level. Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account. Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process. The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
Dear all, I am OK with revised draft. Thanks, Anil Jain anil@nixi.in
On 14-Sep-2023, at 7:01 PM, ariel.liang@icann.org wrote:
Dear all,
The leadership team has developed revised language for Final Recommendation 3.5 and Implementation Guidance 3.6 for your consideration. Please share your thought on this email thread before next week’s meeting.
Thank you! Ariel
Final Recommendation 3.5: In addition to explaining the mission and purpose of its applied-for primary gTLD string, a future applicant will be required to explain why it has applied for one or more allocatable variant label(s) of that applied-for primary gTLD string. The same requirement applies to existing registry operators who wish to apply for allocatable variant label(s) of their existing gTLDs. The explanation provided must address the following factors for each and every applied-for variant label:
3.5.1 The meaning of the applied-for variant label and how it is the same as the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD;
3.5.2 The language communities who will benefit from the introduction of the applied-for variant label;
3.5.3 The benefits that introducing the variant label in conjunction with the applied-for primary gTLD string or existing gTLD will provide to registrants, Internet users and the online community at-large; and
3.5.4 How the applicant intends to mitigate potential user-confusion that could be caused by not only the introduction of the applied-for gTLD variant label at the top-level but also in combination with the activation of domain names at the second-level.
Implementation Guidance 3.6: A panel of evaluators with relevant expertise should review the explanation submitted by an applicant for each of the applied-for variant label(s) using criteria based on a general standard of reasonableness. In other words, the submitted responses should be reasonably legitimate and address or remedy concerns arising from the factors set out in Final Recommendation 3.5. Additional criteria may be included provided any additional criteria is pre-identified during implementation. Evaluators may ask clarifying questions of the applicant on the submitted explanation, but the evaluators are not obliged to take the clarifying information into account.
Consistent with Recommendation 27.2 from the SubPro PDP Final Report, each of the applied-for variant labels evaluated against the identified criteria will be scored on a pass/fail scale (0-1 points only). Applicants will be presumed to have carefully considered whether the applied-for variant labels are necessary to achieve the stated mission and purpose of the primary gTLD and as such, receiving a score of zero (0) should be rare. However, in the event that an applied-for variant label receives a score of zero (0 point), that variant label will be ineligible to proceed further in the application process. A variant label that receives a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
The same applies to existing registry operators such that only their applied-for variant labels that each receive a score of 1 point can proceed to the next stage of the application process.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
Hi all, in general I think the suggested wording is ok. The bullet points in 3.5 will serve the purpose that applicants don't just try to activate all allocatable variants, but will have to think about for each variant, why they need it and if it's really necessary. However, I also copy Dennis' reservation, especially regarding 3.5.4. It will be very difficult to put an objective mark (0/1) to the answers. How should the evaluators decide whether the mentioned mitigation suffices. For example, if the applicant says that they will ensure that the cross-TLD domain variants will be handled "correctly" (i.e., only the same entity will be able to apply for variants), is that already sufficient? If yes, then we could also leave out 3.5.4, because the above will already be required by our developed policy and every registry MUST adhere to it. If it's not sufficient, what else is needed? Does the registry need to look at the content of each and every domain? That certainly is not viable. 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
participants (5)
-
Anil Jain -
Ariel Liang -
Donna austin -
Michael Bauland -
Tan Tanaka, Dennis