Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC
Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 11 June at 2000 UTC. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Applicant Support (multipliers at auction): ACTION ITEM: In the Implementation Guidance add language about researching a cap. ACTION ITEM: Change to “However, assignments that become necessary because of changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc., shall be permitted.” Delete the word “legitimate from the preceding sentence. Check the chat for other examples from Paul McGrady. 2.3 Role of Application Comment b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): ACTION ITEM: WG members should review section 2.4. General comment -- spell out acronyms when first used. ACTION ITEM: Spell out acronyms when first used in a section. 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string. 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52... Proposed Language - Bid Credit/Multiplier for Applicant Support Recipients at Auction Implementation Guidance: “All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).” Discussion: -- Another option: “To disincentivize “gaming” of the applicant support program by applicants who are applying on behalf of third parties, or with the intent to immediately transfer ownership to third parties, applicants who receive financial support through the ASP Program will not be permitted to assign the relevant Registry Agreement within the first five (5) years of execution of the Registry Agreement unless they repay the repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%). ” -- Suggest 3 years from the signing of the contract. -- Need to make sure an ASP candidate can manage the finances and security. -- Need to give some thought to the string. An ASP applicant might want to go with a generic string, especially if they wanted to raise money for their community. -- Talked about this before in 2016 in Work Track 1 -- didn’t want to limit what an applicant could or couldn’t apply for. -- Put into the context of other provisions, such as if an applicant is a community applicant and qualifies (CPE), then auctions won’t apply. -- If they are one of many applicants then we are trying to even the playing field (or if they don’t qualify as community). -- This is similar to spectrum auctions in the US and Brazil. -- If we have two successful community applicants for the same string we haven’t come up with anything other than auctions to address it. -- The funding for the ASP is limited, so maybe there is a ceiling or payback option. -- If the bid credit is 25% then the applicant is only on the hook for 75%, but money is not being paid out. -- A credit won’t work with a third party auctioneer -- the administrative fees -- but this would be limited to an ICANN auction. -- In the public comments there was no support for giving priority to an applicant who gets applicant support. -- Mechanism could just be a discount off of the price -- but we are saying that research should be done on the mechanism. We don’t have enough knowledge to determine the mechanism or cap. We could add language about researching a cap. -- Could add something about being consistent with similar processes. Re: “However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted.” -- Non-profits also have requirements that might involve legitimate assignments. -- Let the Implementation Review Team focus on the legal language. -- Mergers, name changes, entity restructuring,... the normal changes of an organization or company. -- The word “legitimate” doesn’t seem to be the right term. -- Not sure how the result of a recommendation coming out of an IRT on this could be anything other than policy. Not sure how this could be figured in a predictability framework, but the IRT needs to be able to develop this formula. -- On the wording, what if it is changed to “assignments that become necessary due to death or retirement, the EBERO process, etc.” Another possibility could be lack of resources, or going out of business. Make sure it’s not different from what would happen in EBERO. ACTION ITEM: In the Implementation Guidance add language about researching a cap. ACTION ITEM: Change to “However, assignments that become necessary because of changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc., shall be permitted.” Delete the word “legitimate from the preceding sentence. Check the chat for other examples from Paul McGrady. 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu...: 2.3 Role of Application Comment b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): The Working Group notes that if an applicant proposes changes to the application in response to public comments, additional processes apply, including an additional public comment period, where applicable. Please see section xx Application Change Requests for discussion of processes related to changes in the application [, with notification to the extent possible of those who made the requests for proposed changes]. -- KK4.1 - Kathy Kleiman suggested adding an additional clause to this sentence. Rationale: "We have asked for ICANN to collect information about the commenters, including email, so it should be relatively easy to notify commenters that, in response to public comment, a proposed change has been made (and fair too). Letting those providing the original comments know that a directly-related change has been proposed to the application and a public comment period has opened seems an easy follow-on to continue the discussion and foster review the proposed change." -- Staff note: The following is included under section 2.4 Application Change Requests: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Community members should have the option of being notified if an applicant submits an application change request that requires a public comment period to be opened at the commencement of that public comment period. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review section 2.4. General comment -- spell out acronyms when first used. ACTION ITEM: Spell out acronyms when first used in a section. 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation Recommendation xx (rationale 2): Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because they appear visually to be a single and plural of one another but have different intended uses. For example, .SPRING and .SPRINGS could both be allowed if one refers to the season and the other refers to elastic objects, because they are not singular and plural versions of the same word. However, if both are intended to be used in connection with the elastic object, then they will be placed into the same contention set. Similarly, if an existing TLD .SPRING is used in connection with the season and a new application for .SPRINGS is intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, the new application will not be automatically disqualified. KK4.4 - Kathy Kleiman submitted a question: "What if they are both open gTLDs without specific use specified; or one is specific use, e.g., elastics, and one is open?" -- What if we add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string? ACTION ITEM: Add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string. 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names Original Text: Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements. Text suggested by Justine: [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.] AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?" JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants." -- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD. -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue. -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-..., which was referenced in developing this section. Alternative suggested language from Justine: “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements." -- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant. -- Not sure how this is different from the old language. -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request. -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”
I couldn't join the call due to a conflict, so I will just comment on a few things on IDNs from the notes:
2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names
Original Text: Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.
Text suggested by Justine: [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.]
AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?"
Translations are not variants. While not mentioned, the same apply for transliterations.
JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants."
-- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD. -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue. -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-...>, which was referenced in developing this section.
Alternative suggested language from Justine: “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements."
-- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant. -- Not sure how this is different from the old language. -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request. -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant.
ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”
ICANN Org's position on this is that variant IDNs should go thru a new TLD application in a subsequent procedure. This is strongly argued against by registries, and it's very good to know that ALAC shares this opposition. But due to this, and the disagreement of Org making this decision with little community consultation, an scooping team was created by the GNSO Council, and this is expected to be address by future policy work. So I suggest policy staff to update the document and the WG with the status on that scoping effort. This would only make the reference more complete, since the outcome wouldn't change: not deciding this item at this WG. Rubens
Rubens, Noted that ICANN takes the position an application and evaluation is required to delegate an IDN TLD that constitutes a variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD. You point out that registries strongly disagree with this approach and that the Sub Pro WG has not fully discussed this issue. Based on the last call, I think many of us are still confused as to whether we are saying that the Registry Agreements must be modified to permit “application” for these IDN variants or to permit “activation” of the IDN variant. One of the issues in the Implementation document for IDN variants appears to be the question of string similarity. Apparently the IDN variant may need to go through a string similarity evaluation before being delegated. In addition, according to the paper linked below, both Objection Processes and “failure modes” have to be evaluated (as to security and stability considerations per SAC 60.) All of this is discussed in the document you referenced: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-... In any case, I believe that the work done by Sub Pro would have to reference the ICANN document that issued on this topic, which specifically states that the Implementation document on IDN variants was published AFTER public comment was received. That document also states the following conclusion: “This report sets the stage to initiate the discussion on implementing IDN variant TLDs. Until a reasonably comprehensive, cohesive and technically secure and stable solution has been agreed by the community for all the TLDs and adopted by the ICANN Board, the existing restriction on the delegation of IDN variant TLDs will continue to apply.” So are we saying that the WG rejects this assertion by ICANN? If we are saying the Registry Agreements have to reflect a change, we need to make sure all members of the WG understand the issue and the background on the issue within ICANN. I understand you to be saying that the question around proper evaluation of an IDN TLD variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD should be referred to the IRT. Is it your view that the issue is Implementation? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC I couldn't join the call due to a conflict, so I will just comment on a few things on IDNs from the notes: 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names Original Text: Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements. Text suggested by Justine: [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.] AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?" Translations are not variants. While not mentioned, the same apply for transliterations. JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants." -- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD. -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue. -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-..., which was referenced in developing this section. Alternative suggested language from Justine: “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements." -- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant. -- Not sure how this is different from the old language. -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request. -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.” ICANN Org's position on this is that variant IDNs should go thru a new TLD application in a subsequent procedure. This is strongly argued against by registries, and it's very good to know that ALAC shares this opposition. But due to this, and the disagreement of Org making this decision with little community consultation, an scooping team was created by the GNSO Council, and this is expected to be address by future policy work. So I suggest policy staff to update the document and the WG with the status on that scoping effort. This would only make the reference more complete, since the outcome wouldn't change: not deciding this item at this WG. Rubens ________________________________ 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.
Anne, I believe this decision to be a policy one, not an implementation one. But my reading of the GNSO Council probable path forward after the IDN Scoping Team concluded is to do a new policy effort on this, not delegate this decision to SubPro. I believe the similarity analysis part of this strongly correlates to the one used in the Fast Track IDN ccTLD process, which has evolved since its inception, so I think that the implementation of this will be somewhat facilitated by building on the shoulders of that process and prevent introducing security issues in the DNS system. And considering the likely use cases like .quebec/québec and simplified/traditional Chinese writings of strings, I don't expect problems to arise. The main similarity vector is Latin x Cyrillic scripts, which are now well known. But the policy aspect is that there is an expectation that the agreements require TLD variants to have a cross-variant bundling policy, and this is not the type of decision to be done in a IRT, IMHO. Rubens
On 15 Jun 2020, at 14:47, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Rubens, Noted that ICANN takes the position an application and evaluation is required to delegate an IDN TLD that constitutes a variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD. You point out that registries strongly disagree with this approach and that the Sub Pro WG has not fully discussed this issue. Based on the last call, I think many of us are still confused as to whether we are saying that the Registry Agreements must be modified to permit “application” for these IDN variants or to permit “activation” of the IDN variant.
One of the issues in the Implementation document for IDN variants appears to be the question of string similarity. Apparently the IDN variant may need to go through a string similarity evaluation before being delegated. In addition, according to the paper linked below, both Objection Processes and “failure modes” have to be evaluated (as to security and stability considerations per SAC 60.) All of this is discussed in the document you referenced: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-...>
In any case, I believe that the work done by Sub Pro would have to reference the ICANN document that issued on this topic, which specifically states that the Implementation document on IDN variants was published AFTER public comment was received. That document also states the following conclusion:
“This report sets the stage to initiate the discussion on implementing IDN variant TLDs. Until a reasonably comprehensive, cohesive and technically secure and stable solution has been agreed by the community for all the TLDs and adopted by the ICANN Board, the existing restriction on the delegation of IDN variant TLDs will continue to apply.”
So are we saying that the WG rejects this assertion by ICANN? If we are saying the Registry Agreements have to reflect a change, we need to make sure all members of the WG understand the issue and the background on the issue within ICANN.
I understand you to be saying that the question around proper evaluation of an IDN TLD variant of an existing or applied for IDN TLD should be referred to the IRT. Is it your view that the issue is Implementation? Thank you, Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC
I couldn't join the call due to a conflict, so I will just comment on a few things on IDNs from the notes:
2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names
Original Text: Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.
Text suggested by Justine: [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.]
AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?"
Translations are not variants. While not mentioned, the same apply for transliterations.
JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants."
-- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD. -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue. -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-...>, which was referenced in developing this section.
Alternative suggested language from Justine: “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements."
-- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant. -- Not sure how this is different from the old language. -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request. -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant.
ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”
ICANN Org's position on this is that variant IDNs should go thru a new TLD application in a subsequent procedure. This is strongly argued against by registries, and it's very good to know that ALAC shares this opposition. But due to this, and the disagreement of Org making this decision with little community consultation, an scooping team was created by the GNSO Council, and this is expected to be address by future policy work. So I suggest policy staff to update the document and the WG with the status on that scoping effort. This would only make the reference more complete, since the outcome wouldn't change: not deciding this item at this WG.
Rubens
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 (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Julie Hedlund -
Rubens Kuhl