hello all

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

good

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

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

new hand

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

Applied the redline. Thanks Edmon

Noted

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

Jeff, it is the troubled item, the most troubled

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

questions should be clear

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

Yes, I think so

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

ok

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

Agreed

Policies can be different, but operations should be standardized

at least me might need to check

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

Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy

just say should "coordinate with", no need to say "defer to"?

I like that Edmon

Agree with Edmon

was that sentence taken from somewhere/

I think so

It was taken from staff paper

Staff paper offers 4 options but recommended ROID

Ah. Yes, is that term defined in the Staff Paper

Variant domains at the second or top level?

second level

This question is actually covered in F1 and F7 in the next section

also different epp commands

for different domains

and different RDAp whois

cctlds can do whatever they eant

@Ariel, but F1 talks about TLD, not SLD, right?

I think F7 is covering the SLD. We will double check

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

requirement to change all backends for sake of very few beneficiaries is not financially feasible

and all standards

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

agree with jeff

and ariel

important distinction Dennis

but it is a different question than whether it has independent lifecycle

roids are just unique ids of different fields

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

@Dennis - that sounds right. Lets put a pin in it to cover it

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

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

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

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

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

But seems to be for the discussion of the EPDP :)

"mutually coherent" is also acceptable

ok

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

I need to step away for a few minutes

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

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

Agree

Hand up

Graphics are always good

Agree on the overlap

thanks all

have to drop

Thanks everyone!

thx all, bye

Thanks

thanks

Thank you