November 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call held on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7hr371pmkm/<https://participate.icann.org/p7hr371pmkm/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c5dc117acd7d7b4d…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/s5lEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 30 November 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):sometimes Skype to toll free US number works (also for free) Julie Hedlund:Unsynced. Jessica Hooper:The phone ending in 2801 is mine. JHooper with Verisign. Thanks. Julie Bisland:Thank you, Jessica Rubens Kuhl:Consenus as stated in GNSO guidelines, which is rough consensus. Rubens Kuhl:Rough consensus is how IETF prefer calling it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):It is the morning time of bird calls here soI will have a different noisy background but we can choose :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): GNSO Working Group Guidelines specify several different levels of consensus. These include Minority Statement where applicable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):what kind of specific situations for 1-char IDN TLDs we forsee? Does Unicode Character 'BEER MUG' (U+1F37A) count as one? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):After today as we review we will then put together a more detailedtime line for what we need to still deal with and settle where possible before the publication of the Preliminary Report in March Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Maxim wouldn't that be an emoji? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):not an IDN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a single item describing the concept, I am not sure we will not have enoji TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):similar to hyerogliphs e.t.c. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Internationalized Domain Names Languages have to date only referred to 'official Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):thanks for the clarification Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):' languages and scripts but I do not beleive Symbols per se Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):But I am not an expert in this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):6 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so far IANA IDN tables have hyeroglyps https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_domains_i… for example. and as I understand all current TLD's IDNs are to be allowed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne see your hand this is foe slide 7 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):YES - re first bullet point Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):OK Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):hoped I hadn't missed it on 6 ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne fresh hand? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I am sorry I cannot understand Rubens at all at this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): the audio is choppy Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Kurt that is very clear to me Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):My proposal for the friendly amendment refers to the fact that aggregating should be (consistent with order of priority to be determined by Work Track ___ recommendations). Agree with Kurt that innovative proposals should not be disadvantaged. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):can we have some proposed language typed into the chat then? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):so we can capture properly Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Anne we hit send at the same time ;=) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):slide 8 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):currently RSEP for Registries seems to be broken Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Sorry if my AC responses are slow the connectivity is orange to red in my AC room today Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Per Kurt's comment, we should add a second bullet point "Innovative proposals requiring further technical evaluation should not be disadvantaged in terms of order of processing applications". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Noted Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Slide 9 Actually Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):So are we going to modify Slide 7 in accordance with the comments or not? (Again, I cannot understand what Rubens is saying.) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):There is too much background noise. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes Anne we will Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):audio is breaking Julie Bisland:@Rubens, you're line is cutting in and out Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Rubens is thre yet another location you can try? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the audio is now dropping in and out Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I do not hear Rubens now Julie Bisland:@Rubens. we are losing you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Stop please Rubens Julie Bisland:should i mute Rubens? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Rubens, we lost a minute of two of your speech Rubens Kuhl:Ok Cheryl. Rubens Kuhl:Ok Cheryl Rubens Kuhl:On bridge now but let's move on with Cheryl Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we will mute his line Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RSEP currently has no predicted finish time Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):"whether a new gTLD application should be required to disclose new services at the time of application" Rubens Kuhl:Rubens Kuhl: "Whether applicants need to specify which pre-approved services will be provided" Rubens Kuhl:That's bullet 1, it's already there. Rubens Kuhl:Yes, there was support to change the policy. Jeff Neuman:Actually RSEP was always how new registry services is evaluated Rubens Kuhl:Consensus is not unanimity. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The RSEP only for the Registries (who have Registry Agreement), and might not be so for Applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least the policy itself is older than the therm Applicant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*term Rubens Kuhl:That's the question posed at bullet 1. Rubens Kuhl:Services that are not pre-approved already require being disclosed in application, if applicant wants it being evaluated. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):he was muted Julie Bisland:try now, Rubens Jeff Neuman:I think that is right Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we on page 9? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):or 11? Julie Hedlund:We were on Financial Evaluation, but Anne is speaking to slide 11, it appears. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I was picking up from 9 again Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):but Anne is on 11 Rubens Kuhl:Anne, I believe we are still in Financial Evaluation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):SO when she finishes we will move to 10 Julie Bisland:Please note: Rubens will be able to chat only unless he states otherwise Julie Hedlund:@Anne: The notes, for the most part, echo the slides so that the slide text can be seen in relation to the discussion points as they arise. Sorry for any confusion. Julie Hedlund:As there is a lot to type staff tries to get a little ahead if possible so that all is covered. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):legacy TLDs have different contracts then new gTLDs , so Name Collisions are not applicable Rubens Kuhl:Means ICANN would do the controlled interruption, not the registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there were talks about 90 days and 120 days , as I remember Rubens Kuhl:About the length, it would be the same as 2012, since there was no consensus to change it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok Rubens Kuhl:ICANN always use contractors, they rarely do anything themselves. But they operate DNS servers, so they could do it if they feel like it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know how much time name collisions lists calculation takes next time? a year like last time? Rubens Kuhl:That means than an applicant could mention whether they believe the string is low risk, aggravated risk, or high risk. And if one of the later two, they can suggest a framework in the application. Nathaniel Edwards:Wouldn't applicants always claim there isn't a collision risk? Rubens Kuhl:Note those slides are recap, they are not tentative language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):No doubt Rubens Kuhl:No they were not. Rubens Kuhl:Note that no decision was supposed to happen in this call. And indeed none was taken. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it would be great to send the deck with the notification of the call Jeff Neuman:The slides will be sent out and we can comment on the e-mail Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is it possible to use numbers instead of bullets? (will be simpler to follow, like 9.1 for the first bullet on p.9) Rubens Kuhl:Nothing to add, thanks Cheryl for running the later part of the meeting. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):military style throat phone :) might be a solution Julie Bisland:NEXT CALL: Thursday, 14 December 2017 at 03:00 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):birds sound nice Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Cheryl. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye everyone ... Thank you

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 30 November 2017
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 30 November 2017 1. SOIs: None. 2. Recap of pending issues: Slide 5 -- IDNs Consensus so far: -- Supporting continuing having IDN TLDs. -- Support allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific situations. -- Use then-current version of RZ-LGR (RZ-LGR-2 at this point). -- Automate RZ-LGR compliance checking as much as feasible (algorithmically) in the application system. -- Support IDN Variant TLDs if operated by same RO -- still pending: policy requirements. -- NOTE: All consensus cals on this topic still require confirmation of language. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Consenus as stated in GNSO guidelines, which is rough consensus. Rubens Kuhl: Rough consensus is how IETF prefer calling it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): GNSO Working Group Guidelines specify several different levels of consensus. These include Minority Statement where applicable. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what kind of specific situations for 1-char IDN TLDs we forsee? Does Unicode Character 'BEER MUG' (U+1F37A) count as one? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): After today as we review we will then put together a more detailedtime line for what we need to still deal with and settle where possible before the publication of the Preliminary Report in March Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Maxim wouldn't that be an emoji? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): not an IDN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): a single item describing the concept, I am not sure we will not have enoji TLDs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): similar to hyerogliphs e.t.c. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Internationalized Domain Names Languages have to date only referred to 'official Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): thanks for the clarification Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): ' languages and scripts but I do not beleive Symbols per se Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): But I am not an expert in this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): 6 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far IANA IDN tables have hyeroglyps https://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables/tables/accenture_egyp_2.5.txt for example. and as I understand all current TLD's IDNs are to be allowed Slide 6 -- Universal Acceptance Consensus so far: -- Support mentioning UASG to applicants. -- Not create additional requirements regarding UA. -- Consensus calls on this topic still require confirmration of language. Slide 7 -- Technical Evaluation Consensus so far: -- Support aggregating technical evaluation as much as feasible -- including between procedrues, which enables the RSP Program. -- Support staff recommendation for technical questions only being pass or fail, not 0-1-2 points in some cases. -- Drill down int CQs still pending information from GDD -- number of CQs at 2012 deemed excessive, suggesting improvements to questions language. -- Other than language and scoring improvements, Technical Evaluation model deemed to be used by SubPro, probably as RSP Program Criteria. Discussion: -- Friendly amendment with respect to the first bullet re: "as much as feasible" we need to also say "(and consistent was policy as to the order of processing to be determined by [Work Track X])". -- Until the time comes for the order of that applicant to be released -- the order of the processing and publishing comes from the other Work Track. -- Could be even a little stronger. We thought that additional technical evaluation shouldn't slow down those applications -- they should retain their place in queue. They shouldn't be penalized from a timing statement. Concerned about a statement that says "as much as feasible" since that is vague. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): My proposal for the friendly amendment refers to the fact that aggregating should be (consistent with order of priority to be determined by Work Track ___ recommendations). Agree with Kurt that innovative proposals should not be disadvantaged. Slide 8 -- Registry Services Consensus so far: -- Support a list of pre-approved services. -- Define RSEP as the tool to evaluate new registry services. Still to define: -- Whether applicants need to specify which pre-approved services would be provided. -- Pre-approved services list, or a minimum list and a process to expand such list in implementation. -- Processing of applications suggesting new registry services. Discussion: -- There is an issue that isn't clearly defined: when we say processing of applications I think we are talking about the order of processing. The point that is missing is whether or not a TLD registry application is required to disclose new registry services, which is the policy in the AGB. ap We know it can do something later and use RSEP. -- Reframe it slightly? Any changes to existing requirements for disclosing new registry services? -- Bullet point 2 implies that we are changing the policy -- define RSEP as the tool to evaluate new registry services. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): "whether a new gTLD application should be required to disclose new services at the time of application" Jeff Neuman: Actually RSEP was always how new registry services is evaluated Rubens Kuhl: Consensus is not unanimity. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): The RSEP only for the Registries (who have Registry Agreement), and might not be so for Applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least the policy itself is older than the therm Applicant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *term Slide 9 -- Financial Evaluation Consensus so far: -- Rebuild it from scratch. -- No to evaluate business-model but look into "marketplace health". -- Nuanced interpretation of how 2012 evaluation was not a business-model evaluation -- still pending. -- 2 straw models already presented, 2 new straw models yet to be presented. -- Consideration of whether to include third-party certification. Slide 10 -- Name Collisions in legacy and 2012 gTLDs -- Consensus on keeping the procedures for 2012-round gTLDs as they are. -- Discussions on name collisions in legacy gTLDs still pending. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): legacy TLDs have different contracts then new gTLDs , so Name Collisions are not applicable Slide 11 -- Name collisions for subsequent procedures Consensus so far: -- On expanding 2012 Framework with categorization of low, aggravated, and high risk. -- On elaborating "do not apply" and "exercise care" lists. -- On keeping readiness requirement for life-threatening collisions. -- For low-risk strings, consensus on starting controlled interruption ASAP and delegate execution to ICANN. Still pending: -- Guidelines, or guidance to make guidelines, for categorization and list creation, including possible applicant opionion and collision framework. -- Definition of SLA for collision readiness. -- Integration with Board-requested SSAC guidance. Discussion: -- Thought we had consensus on the "do not apply" and "exercise care" lists that this has to be an early evaluation. -- What does "delegate execution to ICANN" mean in the 4th bullet? Suggest new wording to make it more clear. -- If an applicant believed there wouldn't be a collision risk they could state that. -- Might help to use the word "proposal" from the applicant. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Means ICANN would do the controlled interruption, not the registries Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there were talks about 90 days and 120 days , as I remember Rubens Kuhl: About the length, it would be the same as 2012, since there was no consensus to change it. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ok Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): do we know how much time name collisions lists calculation takes next time? a year like last time? Rubens Kuhl: That means than an applicant could mention whether they believe the string is low risk, aggravated risk, or high risk. And if one of the later two, they can suggest a framework in the application. Nathaniel Edwards: Wouldn't applicants always claim there isn't a collision risk? Rubens Kuhl: Note those slides are recap, they are not tentative language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): No doubt Slide 12 -- Root Zone Scaling -- Consultation sent to SSAC, RSSAC, and OCTO. -- Consensus on separating application processing and contracting capacity from root zone scalability. -- WT apparently leaning towards removing hard ceilings, replacing with continued monitoring.

1 0

WT4 Call Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl Nov. 30, 2017

Nov. 30, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Today's (or tomorrow depending on timezone) call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place November 31, 2000 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome/Introduction/SOIs 2. Recap of pending issues 3. AOB Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

2 1