Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:50
Thanks for joining team
Julie Bisland
31:54
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:03
Great for us in APAC though!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:43
miracles *might* happen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:33
00:30 UTC, 23 June 2020ID# 12107 Participation Links Zoom Meeting Link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94411439704Zoom Meeting ID: 944 1143 9704
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
36:30
do we know what we will be discussing during the ICANN meeting sessions?
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
37:03
thanks
Heather Forrest
37:03
Good choice of broader interest topics for the ICANN meeting, Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:38
yes that's it
Steve Chan
37:56
Anne says yes :)
Steve Chan
38:08
We will pick up in the IDN section next
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:09
Yup :-)
Steve Chan
38:19
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:36
right - it's just a consistency issue
Heather Forrest
39:00
no objection
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:04
Thx @Anne
Justine Chew
39:06
No issue
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:41
2019
Rubens Kuhl
41:32
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/idn-scoping-team-final-report-17jan20-en.pdf
Rubens Kuhl
43:29
Annex A: Draft IDN Variants Issue Scoping - PolicyTrack 2
Kathy Kleiman
45:08
Are we proposing to accept the first Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) (black and green on my screen) and reject the second one (red on my screen)?
Rubens Kuhl
45:17
While there is no such case today, it would prevent .québec from activating .quebece.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:50
That is my understanding @Justine (as a member of the IDN WG of At-Large not in Co-Chair mode)... Well presented @Justine...Thanks...
Heather Forrest
47:41
Another PDP... oh, goodie
Heather Forrest
47:51
in addition to Transfer Policy
Heather Forrest
47:57
good luck to our GNSO Councilors
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:57
;-)
Rubens Kuhl
48:16
It was suggest to be an EPDP, so we will have more EPDPs than just the registration data policy one.
Rubens Kuhl
48:32
(suggested)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:34
equally Oh Goodie
Rubens Kuhl
49:38
Jeff, not really. A Latin script TLD can be a variant of an ASCII TLD, like .québec and .quebec.
Kathy Kleiman
49:42
Anne raises a good point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:52
Anne it is actually clearer with the new text IMO
Justine Chew
50:13
+1 Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:41
and it is these edge issues that need to be clear that this is not effecting those
Rubens Kuhl
51:13
No, variants are a very narrowed concept in IDN terminology.
Rubens Kuhl
51:16
(narrow)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:28
Very specific
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:00
I think we would have to acknowledge the future policy process because this looks like a policy statement that addresses the "how". So add the following "pursuant to a process to be determined at the GNSO Council level"
Rubens Kuhl
52:50
I believe it's mentioned in the footnote that such policy process is in progress.
Heather Forrest
53:59
@Rubens - just so I'm absolutely clear, how is your example above (A Latin script TLD can be a variant of an ASCII TLD, like .québec and .Quebec") distinguished from a translation given that .Quebec is considered the English translation of the French accented version?
Heather Forrest
54:16
To be clear, I'm not trying to cause trouble - just generally trying to understand the difference to anticipate trouble for the IRT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
54:35
Thanks @Justone
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:42
Good question Heather
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
54:47
eek typo sorry Justine
Rubens Kuhl
54:52
@Heather, because the reason is different, even though a translation block would generate the same result on those two specific strings.
Heather Forrest
55:39
quick question pls?
Rubens Kuhl
56:03
Kathy and Heather
Kathy Kleiman
56:04
hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:43
it is noted @Kathy
Heather Forrest
57:04
Great, thanks, Steve and Jeff - so it comes down to the lgRs
Heather Forrest
57:06
fine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:41
+1 Kathy
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:54
"The Working Group acknowledges that this policy does not apply to translations (as opposed to IDN variants.)
Rubens Kuhl
59:55
Perhaps a warning in the rationale that variant is a defined term in IDN science and not the garden-variety meaning of it.
Kathy Kleiman
59:55
hand still up
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:29
Translations not automatically considered variants
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:33
They could be variants
Justine Chew
01:01:52
We can't say it outright like what Anne and Kathy are suggesting. If at all, it should be along the lines, of "In general, ....."
Justine Chew
01:02:23
.... + what Rubens said,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:48
noted @Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:41
be very cautious with the use of the term "translations" here in this context....
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:19
+1 Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:11
and for everyone to understand the policy being adopted...
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:23
that would help!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:08:39
hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:32
noted @Anne
Paul McGrady
01:12:29
I'm a little concerned that, as a matter of principal, I don't know how we can gather consensus around a provision that many don't understand. Is there anyone on this call that feels like they really have a strong handle on IDN variants that could take a try at a paragraph or two on explanations/examples?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:13
I'm okay with that.
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:02
Looks more like rationale indeed.
Justine Chew
01:16:27
And please use the correct name for entities referenced
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:40
Yup clear and useful add then @Jeff
Justine Chew
01:16:58
NCAP vs NCAP DG
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:17:47
and there is a difference between DG and Admin Group
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:17:49
yup
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:50
good catch @Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:56
sounds good
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:36
Don't support Jim text. We can't make policy for other groups.
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:50
We can't order them anything.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:45
If Jim Galvin said that SSAC would not delegate what can and cannot be delegated... that's key.
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:46
Either way, doesn't support it. If ICANN Org believes it should go with SSAC and NCAP, that's their prerogative.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:23:12
they are more an authority on this topic than we are - to pauls earlier point on IDNs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:40
Agree @Jeff I believe he was careful to note that
Justine Chew
01:25:05
Yes, perhaps we should try to combine both original text and Jim P's intent on criteria.
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:21
Lists can be created, what is unknown is whether they be exhaustive or not. What Jim said is his thinking that an exhaustive list is not feasible, and he is likely right.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:25:26
so maybe ICANN Community
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:46
Should we say that "the IRT should consider SSAC Advice to the ICANN Board and the outcome of the work of the NCAP when developing the risk categories and tests"
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:47
good
Justine Chew
01:26:18
Plus we had acknowledged earlier the NCAP work (now moved to rationale).
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:35
Either one can be gamed, if not designed properly.
Paul McGrady
01:28:10
What happens if they don't develop the criteria? Is the round postponed?
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:46
Paul, the contractor that will make assessments will have to develop it during the round on its own. Like happened in 2012.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:28:58
Jim G and Jim P
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:51
This is policy, we either decide it now or we don't.
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:23
Just to remember, the 2012 name collision framework deviated from SSAC advice.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:34:09
I believe thenext one is Anne's
Rubens Kuhl
01:36:36
If one thinks IDN variants is a tough topic to grasp, collision criteria is way more technical.
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:19
It's true...
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:40:14
or have a RSP who helps them navigate it
Rubens Kuhl
01:41:40
A list is something more palatable to humans than collision criteria.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:31
But, believing those lists to be exhaustive is unrealistic.
Paul McGrady
01:42:39
I still don't like the "die in the ditch" concept ahead of a consensus call ahead of public comment...
Justine Chew
01:42:40
The additional text says "should"
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:16
Requiring a non-standard mitigation framework is the definition of aggravated.
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:26
So one is interchangeable with the other.
Heather Forrest
01:44:56
+1 Paul - I'm not convinced that this puts us on solid ground with section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines
Heather Forrest
01:45:19
'this' being the 'die in a ditch' or 'can't live with' exercise
Rubens Kuhl
01:47:56
That's a definition, not a predetermination.
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:04
This is repetitive from what is already said in the evaluation criteria.
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:33
All strings will be evaluated as to collision risk, no matter what.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:49:53
mine was an edit on the original implementation guidance
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:59
Also repetitive of what is said in the evaluation criteria.
Justine Chew
01:50:16
It was a separate IG
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:50:24
ok
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:32
Sounds right Jeff
Justine Chew
01:50:37
It WASN'T a separate IG. Sorry.
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:51:14
it wasn't meant to be but it it makes it easier, im ok with that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:32
noted @Jim
Paul McGrady
01:51:37
I'm not sure how I am supposed to die in a ditch or not when we are drafting on the fly... :-)
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:52:39
me
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
01:53:07
direct quote from the draft final NCAP study
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:53:21
This is the actual quote from STudy 1 of the NCAP.
Rubens Kuhl
01:54:11
Leaving out is fine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:20
Time check @Jeff
Justine Chew
01:54:21
Make reference to the NCAP Study 1 Final Report in a footnote,
Justine Chew
01:54:33
If necessary.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:45
Which footnote are you deleting?
Rubens Kuhl
01:55:47
Occult sciences
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:56:28
But we will still link the Board resolution?
Justine Chew
01:56:35
Sorry, the way the alternative text is being presented the way it is presented in the googledoc is a little confusing.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:56:44
ok thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:04
Thanks everyone a lot again covered today, and yes the topic(s) are tricky and highly specialised... More later in the week... Remember to respond if you need to, re Package #5!.... Bye for now
Paul McGrady
01:59:13
Thanks Jeff!
Julie Bisland
01:59:14
NEXT CALL:Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:59:33
Thanks everyone.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:40
more familiar to most Yes @Jeff still need solving
Heather Forrest
02:00:00
Thanks, Jeff