February 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 23 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 23 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 23 February 1. Full Work Update: Next meeting Monday, 27 February at 1500 UTC. 2. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… -- Discussion of questions. -- Question 4.1 is accepted as written, from this call. 3. Universal Acceptance (See slides): -- UA in a Nutshell (Slide2) -- Key Points (Slide 3) Q&A: Next Round of TLDs: -- Question: In the AGB would be good to use a requirement for UA. Compliance with best practices. -- Answer: Could be in the AGB. We are more in the banking, social media, e-commerce, to be UA ready. Could be a good practice, but not a requirement. -- Question: Some people believe that ICANN should be warning people about gTLD issues (UA). -- Answer: We get pretty high acceptance rate for names that are short, and as they get longer they get longer. Wouldn't say that people should be warned. We are getting more applications to be ready. -- When you talk about UA I don't see how it applies to the next round. -- Not sure how it would apply. Registries might want to know about it. This has been an issue since 2001. -- Not just IDNs having IDN problems. -- What can an applicant do? The contract is subject to the IDN guarantee and the language tables? A lot is out of applicants' hands. What can a registry operator do? -- Make sure that non-IDN strings get picked up in Universal Acceptance. -- Leaning more towards a light touch. >From the chat room: Rubens Kuhl: Currently, AGB states that "Applicants must further demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the encoded IDN string does not cause any rendering or operational problems. " But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. From registry agreement: "1.2 Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement." 4. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Application Evaluation: (4.3 Https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw) -- Technical evaluation: 4.3.1: Is consolidation desirable? -- 4.3.2: Financial evaluation (reading questions)

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 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 held on Thursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/bbTDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/bbTDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 09 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_b bTDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ bbTDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33Os U&s=HP5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=HP 5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e= Christa Taylor:Awesome slide!! Terri Agnew:Thank you Christa Steve Chan:Here is the sign-up sheet: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d =DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFz L7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7wGq H97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7w GqH97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e= Jeff Neuman:Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Jeff Neuman:Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se use to pass TLD applicants through PDT Jeff Neuman:In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Also known as IIS Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we need to note that yes Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_s ystem_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS S6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b 1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS-Kz Q&e= avri doria:But SSAC is just advice and their comclusions might need verification an discussion Trang Nguyen:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en _system_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkb PSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp7 2b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS- KzQ&e= Rubens Kuhl:The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on stringsimilarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approachto the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANNshould disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in allscripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of eachindividual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, andTLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet EngineeringTask Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of thisreport, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made inthis document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned abovehave been completed. Rubens Kuhl:Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz:Some single-charactier IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. Kurt Pritz:But it seems we could white-list scripts wher esingle characters are allowed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman:should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed @Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view Jeff Neuman:I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option Kurt Pritz:I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and a that a committee has paased on them somehow Jeff Neuman:@CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. avri doria:i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz:Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery Jeff Neuman:Good example Kurt Kurt Pritz:I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion Jeff Neuman:Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):True Jeff Jeff Neuman:could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability Jeff Neuman:and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that would work for me Jeff avri doria:it may be sufficnet that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution. Julie Hedlund:Time check: We are 6 minutes past the end of the call. Steve Chan:I was just going to note what Julie said... Julie Hedlund:Some staff may need to join other calls. Jeff Neuman:Really good session. Jeff Neuman:we will continue this next time Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Martin Sutton:Thank you Sarmad Jeff Neuman:thanks!! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all. Bye. Sarmad Hussain:thank you Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:have a great day all Christa Taylor:Thanks. avri doria:bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye

1 1

WT4 Meeting Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Universal Acceptance 5. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Don Hollander, Universal Acceptance Initiative Head. Adobe Connect room: 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

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 09 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 09 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 09 February 1. Full WG Update: -- Call for volunteers for three drafting teams: - Volunteer on the link to the sign-up sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6… 1) Different TLD Types -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw 2) Predictability/Community Engagement -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw and https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw 3) Applications Assessed in Rounds – see: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw 2. IDN Program Update (see slides from Sarmad Hussain: IDN Program Update – WT4.pdf) Overview of Projects (slide 2) -- IDNs at Top Level: IDN TLD Program: Label Generation Rules, LGR Toolset, IDN Variant TLD implementation, etc. IDN TLD Program (slide 3) -- Phase 1 -- Case Studies -- Phase 2 -- Integrated Issues Report -- Phase 3 -- Projects: P1, P2.1, P6 -- Phase 4 -- Projects: P1, P2.2, P7 Root Zone LGR Procedure (slide 4) -- One Generation Panel per script or writing system -- Generation Panel flows into Integration Panel -- Integration Panel flows into rules Status of Root Zone LGR (slide 5) -- work in progress Status of Generation Panels (slide 6) -- 28+ scripts; 19+ GPs LGR Specification and Toolset (beta) (slide 7) -- Online beta deployment at: https://lgrtool.icann.org/ -- Open source license IDN Variant TLD Implementation (slide 8) -- applications indicate variant TLDs -- 25 September 2010 -- no variants of gTLDs delegated until appropriate variant managements solutions developed -- Integrated Issues Report (2012) -- Solutions: Root zone LGR procedure to define valid labels and variants; determine variant management mechanism. IDN Country Code Top-Level Domains (slide 9) IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (slide 10) -- Currently under review: issues with EPSRP -- ccNSO reviewed; finalized recommendations and under consideration by the Board. IDN Implementation Guidelines (slide 11) -- Guidelines for IDN registration policies and practices at the second level to address end-user concerns (minimize confusion) -- Contractually binding for registrars and registries -- Recommended for IDN ccTLDs -- GNSO requested updating the guidelines (current is 2011) -- Update is in progress. IDN Guidelines WG Members (slide 12) Summary of Items Covered by the Guidelines (slide 13) -- Detailed text of the recommendations at IDNGWG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+implementation+Guidelines. Reference Second Level LGRs (slides 14 & 15) -- Project to develop reference language tables -- Public comments: process for development and maintenance; guidelines for LGR Development; reference second level LGRs published Junee 2016. -- LGRs being developed and published since Oct 2016. Discussion: Q: Why are emoji TLDs not allowed ? A: The code points we can support are from IDNA2008 -- we can't do it independently. Would have to be taken up at the IETF platform. >From the chat room: Jeff Neuman: Q: Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Should this group be working on this, or is another group? A: What was suggested was that there has to be some technical solutions that need to be evaluated. An internal exercise is to find out what are the issues and what would be possible solutions. Bring solutions back to the community and get guidance. Maybe in the next couple of months. -- Until those come out the prohibition from 2010 should still apply -- right? Yes. Might look to this group as to how the solutions should be adopted into the policy, or what is relevant. Q: Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se (IIS) use to pass TLD applicants through PDT? A: We are separately publishing reference IDN tables for the second level for the root zone LGR. A TLD can use those and if it does it will pass the test, but that does not mean it must follow them and can propose its own solutions, but then security and stability testing would be needed. -- We should probably consider putting that guidance into an AGB. Q: In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? A: There is an SSAC advisory that explains why single character IDNs present a risk and suggesting that they should not be allowed. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-052-en.pdf. We could go back to the SSAC to see if that is a discussion to go back to them. -- Single characters in these languages so now is a really good time to engage in that work to see if there are any technical issues with single-character IDNs. -- That is noted. avri doria: But SSAC is just advice and their conclusions might need verification and discussion. Rubens Kuhl: The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on string similarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approach o the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANN should disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in all scripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of each individual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, and TLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of this report, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made in this document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned above have been completed. Rubens Kuhl: Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz: Some single-character IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. But it seems we could white-list scripts where single characters are allowed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman: should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed @Jeff. all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view. Jeff Neuman: I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option. Kurt Pritz: I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and that a committee has passed on them somehow. (CLO -- Agree to include.) Jeff Neuman: @CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. IDNs: Consensus Call on 1-character IDN TLDs (slide 7 from SubPro WT4_9Feb2017.pdf) Possible language: "IDN 1-char gLTDs won't be disallowed for script/language combinations where a character is an ideograph (or ideogram), provided they are not country and/or territory names." Discussion: -- Coordination with ccNSO and GAC consultations [add SSAC?] might be advisable. If and if so, when to start them? -- Ask the plenary for an early start on this matter so it can go in parallel. -- Comments on one-character IDN TLD why it may cause security issue: One of the arguments presented is that the chances of confusability increases if it is a shorter string. Second is that calling out ideographs -- normally they are script based, not language based, so there could be an argument that if they don't have a meaning if a particular script allowed why is another character of another script not allowed (question limit to ideographs). -- If you have a longer string you have a context, but if you have a single character there is no context. -- From a staff perspective we would agree that reaching out to the SSAC is a priority, but I am not sure we have agreed that there is a need for a single character, to perhaps update their existing advice. Staff will consider a proposal on how to reach out to the SSAC and present that the the WT. >From the Chat: avri doria: i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz: Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery. Jeff Neuman: Good example Kurt. Kurt Pritz: I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion. Jeff Neuman: Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): True Jeff IDNs: Consensus Call on Variant TLDs (slide 8) Possible Language: "IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs won't be disallowed provided: (1) they have the same registry operator implementing, by force of agreement, technical bundling (as defined in RSEP 2014012) among the members of the TLD set; (2) top-level LGRs and second-level LGRs already established for the script/language at evaluation time." Discussion: -- I thought Sarmad said they are studing this and until that is done this might be premature. Need guidance on when that study is done. -- In this case if we have arguments based on consensus I see no harm in making them. I am not sure we need to necessarily postpone a first cut, if the group is ready. -- Part of the work we (ICANN) have been doing -- currently the solutions .china ccTLD for example, We have actually seen that there is more than one solution technically. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability, and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? avri doria: it may be sufficient that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution.

1 0

Next WT4 call
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC, 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. For other times: http://migre.me/w0XQ7 <http://migre.me/vTJup> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. IDNs (including but not limited to IDN Variant TLDs*) 5. CC2 questions (if there is interest) 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Sarmad Hussain, ICANN IDN Programs Director. Considering the previous discussion on IDN Variant TLDs, the goal is to get to a consensus call on the topic, if such a consensus is found to be achievable. 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