Dear all, I have received the following from Satish Babu. At-Large representative in the EPDP: PR 10-12 are the direct consequence of the "Same Entity" principle that was first formulated during the Phase 1 stage of the EPDP, and has continued into Phase 2 as well. At the second level, when we enumerate the variants of existing domain names, it is possible that two active domain names, belonging to different applicants, turn out to be variants of each other. This would be a violation of the "Same Entity" principle, and therefore we need a special process to handle this, which is grandfathering. As pointed out in the mail, these recommendations are unlikely to conflict with the TRP recommendations, and may only require some update to the language. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large From: rcarney--- via GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 22 August 2024 at 21:35 To: gnso-tpr@icann.org <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Re: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) EPDP recommendations related to the Transfer Policy Good Afternoon, Just a quick reminder to review the items below and if you have concerns with the recommendations as written by the IDN WG, you may wish to reach out to your SG/C representatives in the EPDP Team as soon as possible to ensure the EPDP Team can consider concerns (if any) Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: Caitlin Tubergen via GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 5:43 PM To: gnso-tpr@icann.org <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) EPDP recommendations related to the Transfer Policy Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear TPR Working Group Members, We hope you are enjoying your well-deserved break. We do not mean to disrupt your break, but did want to inform you that the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) EPDP Team is working to complete its Phase 2 Final Report over the next several weeks. Why does this matter to the TPR WG? The Phase 2 Final Report has three recommendations which directly or indirectly reference the Transfer Policy. These are explained in more detail later in this message. I see that the Transfer Policy is referenced, but does this affect our timeline or Final Report? Leadership and Support Staff have discussed this, and we do not think these recommendations should affect this group’s work or timeline. In short, the implementation of these recommendations may require updates to the Transfer Policy, but the recommendations do not conflict or affect any of the current policy recommendations in our Initial Report. Why are you telling me this now? The short answer is that the EPDP on IDNs Phase 2 is finalizing its Final Report and seeks assurance that these particular recommendations will not have an impact on or contradict the work of the TPR WG, so if you have concerns with the recommendations as written, you may wish to reach out to your SG/C representatives in the EPDP Team as soon as possible to ensure the EPDP Team can consider concerns (if any). It is worth noting, though, that the ALAC, BC, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG all participated in the Public Comment period. In other words, some concerns have already been expressed to the IDN EPDP Team in the public comments, and the EPDP Team is in the process of reviewing all public comments received; this outreach is in fact in response to the public comment review process. What do these IDN Phase 2 Recommendations say? * Preliminary Recommendation 10: In the event an inter-registrar transfer process is initiated for a domain name, which is a member of a variant domain set, the process must encompass all of its allocated variant domain names, if any, together. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement. [TPR Leadership note: This will likely require an update to the Transfer Policy as part of implementation, but does not conflict with the TPR WG’s recommendations.] * Preliminary Recommendation 11: In the event a domain name is ordered to be transferred as a result of a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) administrative proceeding, the transfer process must include the domain name and all of its allocated variant domain names, if any, together. The grandfathered variant domain names pursuant to Preliminary Recommendation 3 are exempt from this requirement. [TPR Leadership note: This will likely require an update to the UDRP Rules as part of implementation, but does not conflict with the TPR WG’s recommendations.] * Implementation Guidance 12: A Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) complainant is responsible for deciding whether to include allocated variant domain names, if any, of a disputed domain name as part of their URS complaint. [TPR Leadership Note: This recommendation may require an update to the URS Rules as part of implementation, but does not conflict with the TPR WG recommendations.] As noted above, if you have concerns with these recommendations that were not raised as part of your group’s public comment submission, we would recommend that you reach out to your designated EPDP representatives<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/5.+PDP+Members+and+mailing+list?...> as soon as possible so they can be discussed with the IDN EPDP Team (expected timeline: 5 September) prior to its submission of its Final Report to the GNSO Council (expected due date: 7 October). Thank you, and we hope you enjoy the rest of your break. Best regards, Caitlin on behalf of the TPR Staff Support Team