Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 July
Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 July. 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 document and slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 July WT4 CC2 Comments: Note that the full text of all CC2 comments for WT4 are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rH2Moiy_mNKh74-ihM74dXWJtcLGZjmbwFnQ... IDNs 4.1.1 - Do you agree or disagree with allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole words (ideograms or ideographs)? -- Nominet, BRG, RySG, ALAC, and Valideus supported allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole word. -- SSAC (see SAC052) recommended specific measures with respect to single-character IDN TLDs, which Afilias also supported. -- John Poole did not support allowing 1-char IDN TLDs. 4.1.2 - Do you have any general guidance or would you like to flag an issue requiring policy work for subsequent procedures regarding IDNs? -- RySG expressed that existing policies are sufficient in this area. -- Afilias expressed support for recommendations in SAC060. -- ALAC and John Poole pointed to additional areas for policy work on IDNs. 4.1.3 - How do you envision the policy and process to allow IDN Variant TLDs to be delegated and operated? -- RySG and Jannik Skou supported the concept of bundling. -- Nominet supported allowing different business models. -- ALAC recommended addressing this issue through participatory processes, offered additional considerations regarding bundling, and suggested measures to support stability and resilience. -- John Poole supported addressing this issue prior to subsequent procedures. 4.1.4 - Should the process of allowing 1-char IDN TLDs and IDN Variant TLDs be coordinated and/or harmonized with ccTLDs? If so to what extent? -- ALAC, Afilias, and John Poole supported harmonization. -- RySG expressed that is not within the remit of the GNSO to comment on ccNSO policy. -- SSAC referenced recommendations and comments included in SAC060, SAC084, and SAC089. Slide 6: IDNs -- Security and Stablity Review (Further Revised After ICANN59) -- Question: Who conducted the SSR Review? Answer: It was Interisle. Wasn't clearly defined in the last round. Most was testing of IDN rendering. Didn't include name collisions. -- Question: Are we talking about the verification being conducted by an independent third party? Answer: Verifying doesn't violate technical standards. Manual invalidation would be used as a last resort by ICANN, or delegated to a third party. To the extent possible it is automated. -- Question: What is the definition of "submission system"? Answer: This is just one aspect of the larger security and stability review. For the 2012 round the submission system would have been tasked, by using "submission system" that allows flexibilty in what kind of system would be used in future. It is the system that accepts applications for new gTLDs. Could change to "application submission system". -- Question: Re: manual invalidation -- the application submission system can only provide a valid or invalid result. If it comes through as invalid is there a manual system to validate it? Answer: If it is a valid test -- no issues identified -- then that would simply be a tick on the box. But if there wasn't the ability automated validation that would allow manual invalidation (or invalidation) as a last resort. Although noting that the system is not implemented at this stage. It depends on how the algorithm is implemented -- if it allows a tertiary system -- yes, no, and I don't know. Slide 7: IDNs: 1-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org and CC2 Comments) -- Question -- should we be more prescriptive? Do we know ALAC's thoughts? More particular and detailed consistent and predictable language is preferred. More than just a statement at highlevel "consistent with SSAC and JIG reports" but include specific references. The rationale is that any time we put documentation into codified language it is always a risk that people won't read or find the references. -- Someone had asked that the reference to country and/or territory names should be removed. Slide 8: IDN Variant TLDs (further revised after ICANN59) -- Leaving it to the registry was one of the CC2 comments (Nominet). -- ICANN cannot afford not deciding this. It needs to go either way. -- Pick up the question on the language and options at the next call.
From the chat:
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION What is the recommendation in SSAC 60 endorsed by Afilias? Emily Barabas: Full text of Aflias comment: "Afilias supports the recommendations of SAC060 “SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report”.Afilias supports the application of the design principles described in SAC084 “SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process” in the consideration of all IDNs." Rubens Kuhl: Verifying it doesn't violate technical standards. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to the extent possible it is automated Jeff Neuman: the system that accepts applications for new gtlds Rubens Kuhl: Do we need to include a glossary perhaps ? Was one included in the previous GNSO recommendations ? Rubens Kuhl: This language is exactly what was seen in ICANN 59. Rubens Kuhl: So this specific language is not new. Steve Chan: Anne, all, the slides are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pwffAw Steve Chan: And the transcript from the WG's ICANN59 F2F are available here: http://sched.co/B49Q Rubens Kuhl: We are not yet proposing AGB language at this point, but policy and implementation guidelines. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): String confusion in relation to IDNs came up in Work Track 3 as well. Don't agree on the "possible language" at all. Very big policy change here, isn't it? Quoc Pham 2: bundling is not a common term/standard, would this imply that it will become a standard? Rubens Kuhl: Anne, this is a policy change from 2012, but one the group agreed upon. Rubens Kuhl: But the not defined policy change is the question being asked. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Definitely overlaps with Work Track 3
Regarding the notes on Slide 6 “manual invalidation”, I think it was agreed on the call that this should be changed to “manual evaluation”. Others should verify, however. Re notes on Slide 7, Steve Chan explained that the suggested replacement for the reference to “country and territory names” was language about “provided it is otherwise in compliance with new gTLD application guidelines” or something to that effect. I thought there was agreement to that principle on the call. (Jeff may want to draft since he is the one who raised this in the Joburg F2F.) Re notes on Slide 8, we should likely note the overlap with Work Track 3 mentioned by Cheryl. (Rubens said he would coordinate with WT3 Co-Chairs.) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D30139.62E5B020] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 July Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 July. 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 document and slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 July WT4 CC2 Comments: Note that the full text of all CC2 comments for WT4 are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rH2Moiy_mNKh74-ihM74dXWJtcLGZjmbwFnQ... IDNs 4.1.1 - Do you agree or disagree with allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole words (ideograms or ideographs)? -- Nominet, BRG, RySG, ALAC, and Valideus supported allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole word. -- SSAC (see SAC052) recommended specific measures with respect to single-character IDN TLDs, which Afilias also supported. -- John Poole did not support allowing 1-char IDN TLDs. 4.1.2 - Do you have any general guidance or would you like to flag an issue requiring policy work for subsequent procedures regarding IDNs? -- RySG expressed that existing policies are sufficient in this area. -- Afilias expressed support for recommendations in SAC060. -- ALAC and John Poole pointed to additional areas for policy work on IDNs. 4.1.3 - How do you envision the policy and process to allow IDN Variant TLDs to be delegated and operated? -- RySG and Jannik Skou supported the concept of bundling. -- Nominet supported allowing different business models. -- ALAC recommended addressing this issue through participatory processes, offered additional considerations regarding bundling, and suggested measures to support stability and resilience. -- John Poole supported addressing this issue prior to subsequent procedures. 4.1.4 - Should the process of allowing 1-char IDN TLDs and IDN Variant TLDs be coordinated and/or harmonized with ccTLDs? If so to what extent? -- ALAC, Afilias, and John Poole supported harmonization. -- RySG expressed that is not within the remit of the GNSO to comment on ccNSO policy. -- SSAC referenced recommendations and comments included in SAC060, SAC084, and SAC089. Slide 6: IDNs -- Security and Stablity Review (Further Revised After ICANN59) -- Question: Who conducted the SSR Review? Answer: It was Interisle. Wasn't clearly defined in the last round. Most was testing of IDN rendering. Didn't include name collisions. -- Question: Are we talking about the verification being conducted by an independent third party? Answer: Verifying doesn't violate technical standards. Manual invalidation would be used as a last resort by ICANN, or delegated to a third party. To the extent possible it is automated. -- Question: What is the definition of "submission system"? Answer: This is just one aspect of the larger security and stability review. For the 2012 round the submission system would have been tasked, by using "submission system" that allows flexibilty in what kind of system would be used in future. It is the system that accepts applications for new gTLDs. Could change to "application submission system". -- Question: Re: manual invalidation -- the application submission system can only provide a valid or invalid result. If it comes through as invalid is there a manual system to validate it? Answer: If it is a valid test -- no issues identified -- then that would simply be a tick on the box. But if there wasn't the ability automated validation that would allow manual invalidation (or invalidation) as a last resort. Although noting that the system is not implemented at this stage. It depends on how the algorithm is implemented -- if it allows a tertiary system -- yes, no, and I don't know. Slide 7: IDNs: 1-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org and CC2 Comments) -- Question -- should we be more prescriptive? Do we know ALAC's thoughts? More particular and detailed consistent and predictable language is preferred. More than just a statement at highlevel "consistent with SSAC and JIG reports" but include specific references. The rationale is that any time we put documentation into codified language it is always a risk that people won't read or find the references. -- Someone had asked that the reference to country and/or territory names should be removed. Slide 8: IDN Variant TLDs (further revised after ICANN59) -- Leaving it to the registry was one of the CC2 comments (Nominet). -- ICANN cannot afford not deciding this. It needs to go either way. -- Pick up the question on the language and options at the next call. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION What is the recommendation in SSAC 60 endorsed by Afilias? Emily Barabas: Full text of Aflias comment: "Afilias supports the recommendations of SAC060 “SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report”.Afilias supports the application of the design principles described in SAC084 “SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process” in the consideration of all IDNs." Rubens Kuhl: Verifying it doesn't violate technical standards. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to the extent possible it is automated Jeff Neuman: the system that accepts applications for new gtlds Rubens Kuhl: Do we need to include a glossary perhaps ? Was one included in the previous GNSO recommendations ? Rubens Kuhl: This language is exactly what was seen in ICANN 59. Rubens Kuhl: So this specific language is not new. Steve Chan: Anne, all, the slides are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pwffAw Steve Chan: And the transcript from the WG's ICANN59 F2F are available here: http://sched.co/B49Q Rubens Kuhl: We are not yet proposing AGB language at this point, but policy and implementation guidelines. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): String confusion in relation to IDNs came up in Work Track 3 as well. Don't agree on the "possible language" at all. Very big policy change here, isn't it? Quoc Pham 2: bundling is not a common term/standard, would this imply that it will become a standard? Rubens Kuhl: Anne, this is a policy change from 2012, but one the group agreed upon. Rubens Kuhl: But the not defined policy change is the question being asked. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Definitely overlaps with Work Track 3 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (2)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Julie Hedlund