Dear all, Please find below the notes from today’s meeting on Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 13:00 UTC. Best regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item #1: Staff to obtain response to the question “What happens in the DNS stability review and what is the relationship with the RZ-LGR?” Action Item #2: ALAC representatives to reach out to the leadership team with any concerns about holding a regular working session during the WG’s ICANN72 time slot. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 14 October 2021 Welcome & Chair Updates * There is a call for volunteers open for the Vice Chair role. One person, Anil Jain, has put his name forward. If necessary, there can be a vote by doodle once the call closes tomorrow (Friday 15 October). ICANN org presentation of RZ-LGR (continued) and demo * How Does RZ-LGR Work? * Real Example Worked Out with RZ-LGR – slide 25 * Possible Process for Evaluating a TLD Label – slide 26 & 27 – this is only a suggestion, the WG will be responsible for making recommendations on the process. * RZ-LGR validation is part of the DNS stability review but it is not the complete DNS stability review. The suggestion on the slides is based on the process used from the 2012 round. * The community will need to guide org on how to integrate RZ-LGR validation into the DNS stability process. * Comment: SubPro did go over DNS stability review. It assumed that RZ-LGR will be part of the DNS stability review. This group needs to be careful to avoid going into other aspects of the DNS stability review. Action Item #1: Staff to obtain response to the question “What happens in the DNS stability review and what is the relationship with the RZ-LGR?” * If an applicant applies for a variant of an existing TLD and it is the same as the RO, it should run through the string similarity review against other strings that are already delegated, but not the string of which it is a variant. * IDN Variant Label (IDL) Set States and Changes – slide 28 * Managing the Number of Variant TLDs Delegated – slide 29 – RZ-LGR asks to minimize allocatable variant labels and maximize blocked variant labels. SAC060 also discusses this issue. IP and the GPs have worked to reduce allocatable variant labels, but limiting delegation needs to be managed further by policy. * Possible Triggers and the Process for Updating the RZ-LGR * What Can Trigger an Update to the Existing Script in RZ-LGR? – slide 31 * Question: Has the process been triggered? Answer: a minor change was made by one GP. Every script is doing its first proposals. * Clarification on slide text, “A constraint on labels in a script can be relaxed without issues to accommodate a particular language.” If there is a code point that is recently encoded by Unicode, it takes time to be supported by fonts and rendering engines. They may have put in place rules for blocking such cases. If the code point becomes stable or the language community believes the rule can be relaxed in some contexts, they can initiate that change. * Question: When someone submits a request for a change, is the GP already constituted or need to be reconstituted/newly formed? Answer: It doesn’t need to be the same group, but often members of a script community remain available. Even if the original group is disbanded, a new one can be formed. * Question: With respect to any new appeals process if it involves the GP, we need to take into account the amount of time needed for the group to become available. Answer: The amount of time would depend on the script community and the availability of experts – there is some external dependency. * Update to existing script proposal – the script community remains aware of what is happening with the script and can reformulate themselves into a GP if they think that additional work needs to be done. * Suggestion: Perhaps the applicable AGB would define the version of RZ-LGR that would be taken into account for validation. So if one is in the works, it would not be used for validation. * Process to Update an Existing Script Proposal in RZ-LGR * See recording for demo (beginning approximately 40 minutes into the meeting) * Question: Is it correct that if you run the same string through the tool using the same XML file, you will get the same result (valid vs. invalid). Answer: Yes. * Question: Some scripts read from right to left, does the tool take this into account? Answer: Yes, the tool can manage this. ICANN72 Planning * Based on the results of the doodle poll, it looks like there will be enough participation from the group to have a regular working session. It was noted that there may not be any ALAC members joining. Action Item #2: ALAC representatives to reach out to the leadership team with any concerns about holding a regular working session during the WG’s ICANN72 time slot.