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