
39:40
hello all

40:01
Hi Maxim - with you now here we can start :)

40:14
good

44:47
The only thing I would suggest is on d3 where we should provide a proper definition of "singleton TLD".

45:25
When an IDN expert like Edmon asks what the term means, then non-experts like me need that definition as well

48:36
new hand

49:07
since there is already an explantion, suggest we strike out the word "singleton" to avoid creating new terminology

49:29
Applied the redline. Thanks Edmon

49:30
Noted

54:40
Maxim - I think we are delving into substance, but we are just working on the charter

55:09
Jeff, it is the troubled item, the most troubled

55:41
@Maxim - I don't disagree with you. But we are not the PDP Working Group.

56:05
questions should be clear

58:56
@jeff, is there need to add description here to effect what you just said?

59:07
Yes, I think so

59:16
There may be other items as well that are in this category

59:26
ok

59:29
where operationally there should be one solution that works for both.

59:35
Agreed

59:40
Policies can be different, but operations should be standardized

01:00:07
at least me might need to check

01:01:31
How does the requirement work in practice? Are we talking about the Sub Pro IRT?

01:02:04
Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy

01:02:18
just say should "coordinate with", no need to say "defer to"?

01:02:27
I like that Edmon

01:02:58
Agree with Edmon

01:04:00
was that sentence taken from somewhere/

01:04:06
I think so

01:04:11
It was taken from staff paper

01:04:24
Staff paper offers 4 options but recommended ROID

01:04:26
Ah. Yes, is that term defined in the Staff Paper

01:05:42
Variant domains at the second or top level?

01:05:52
second level

01:07:28
This question is actually covered in F1 and F7 in the next section

01:07:29
also different epp commands

01:07:40
for different domains

01:07:59
and different RDAp whois

01:08:11
cctlds can do whatever they eant

01:08:23
@Ariel, but F1 talks about TLD, not SLD, right?

01:08:39
I think F7 is covering the SLD. We will double check

01:08:46
So bottom line is yes this involves policy. But if covered in Section F, that is good

01:09:26
requirement to change all backends for sake of very few beneficiaries is not financially feasible

01:09:33
and all standards

01:09:37
F7 is about whether each variant registration should be considered to have independent domain lifecycle, but we can include Edmon’s language in F7

01:09:44
agree with jeff

01:10:00
and ariel

01:10:25
important distinction Dennis

01:10:26
but it is a different question than whether it has independent lifecycle

01:10:27
roids are just unique ids of different fields

01:10:48
Yes, we will work on that after the call to include Edmon’s language in section F

01:10:54
@Dennis - that sounds right. Lets put a pin in it to cover it

01:14:26
If we have variants in the Latin Script and there is a same entity requirement, we are going to have a mess between languages, right

01:15:01
i understand "not conflicting" to have a nuance and thus different than "the same"... but this is substance we should discuss in the actual WG

01:16:17
The phrase the staff paper uses is “mutually coherent”, which I think is consistent with Edmon’s comment?

01:16:53
But isn't each Registry under the Guidelines required to indicate the "Language" and the "script" and not allowed to register things outside the indicated language and script

01:16:59
Another variant across script scenario can be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, which also share similar characters

01:17:21
But seems to be for the discussion of the EPDP :)

01:17:29
"mutually coherent" is also acceptable

01:17:31
ok

01:18:07
we agree it's a discussion for the WG: so what's the question we need to draft to draw out the discussion?

01:20:32
I need to step away for a few minutes

01:20:38
nothing, what prompted me to bring it up is Dennis' original explanation of the background used "the same" instead of "not conflicting", but later dennis just now clarified it already and the description in the document is correct

01:25:07
ok, I get it now. I think we need to be clear that it within that TLD. But what if you variant TLDs....that can expand exponentially

01:27:05
Agree

01:27:25
Hand up

01:28:38
Graphics are always good

01:29:52
Agree on the overlap

01:31:02
thanks all

01:32:37
have to drop

01:33:44
Thanks everyone!

01:33:46
thx all, bye

01:33:48
Thanks

01:33:51
thanks

01:33:53
Thank you