hello all

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jQrzU9NDOlMwNw4zFcndOFEYhSIo3EAXAHTVirsMup8/edit#gid=0

Just want to announce that the SubPro Report is now Final and has been submitted to the Council for its consideration.

subpro might not work for existing tlds

I think it can be covered. How many SLDs in Variant TLDs do we have?

and there should be a review of what happens when two existing registrants oc different variants of the same domain exist

not all tables are created so far as I understand

Are existing gTLDs doing that? I know ccTLDs may be. But what about gTLDs

this should be researched

+1 on research

subpro might be a policy, not a consensus one, and thus might not be binding for TLDs

existing

Yes, the wording of the relevant question has reflected Jeff’s point — is there any reason why such recommendation should be revised, etc.

4 min left

@Maxim - it is a Consensus Policy (if 2/3 of the Council adopt it). But it doesn't apply to existing TLDs

The only question is whether the policies apply to existing TLDs

we had a lot of conversations about unification among ccTLds and gtlds

Time check - We just have one minute left for this segment

agree Maxim: harmonization of the policy/ies for existing and future TLDs should be a consideration.

Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit?ts=5fdb78e1

Agree Dennis. I'm sure we can find a balance.

We could have a reference/link to the mapping document.

Agree Dennis, and if it is not applicable to existing TLDs then the WG would need to resolve that problem.

the planets are unlikely to align to make the timing of the different efforts sequential.

There is no question that the SubPro IRT needs experts to consider this question as part of their effort. But implementation (IRTs) are behind the development of policy

A PDP requires a call for constituency statements, an Initial Report, several public comment periods, and then a Final Report

Whereas an IRT is experts working with staff to implement

I think its a good idea for us to take a holistic approach approach at this time in an attempt to mitigate any potential gaps in various efforts.

I'm okay with Edmon's suggestion

Donna, the holistic approach can be taken at the implementation level as this is an implementation

how is it different here? i feel we are not contradicting what jeff is saying

Because the 2 efforts are in completely different phases.

as long as this IDN EPDP does not stop Subpro IRT from moving forward arent we good?

we just need to make this explicit in the charter?

agree Edmon

Dennis/staff agree with Jeff that questions a7) and a7-1 can be deleted, as self-identified variants don’t have legal standing. So if RZ-LGR is regarded as the sole source, then this question would be void

I am saying it a little differently. This question should be referred to SubPro to make sure it considers and implements.

Leaving it here as Edmon has a comment to undelete these questions

[d]eclaring variant strings is informative only and will not imply any right or claim to the declared variant strings.” For more details see gTLD Applicant Guidebook, version 2012-06-04, section 1.3.3 IDN Variant TLDs, p.1-35: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf

I do agree with the need for this process.

it should go with application, and during the round

next round

That text Ariel copied into chat is also included as a footnote.

So the question is still (a) are the self identified variants actually included in the contracts and (b) were they implemented. If the answer to either (a) or (b) is no, then there is nothing to do.

Most likely our work plan/agenda needs to be adjusted for next week…

DT members are welcome to provide comments on mailing list for the questions between meetings

Thanks Dennis

thx bye

thanks all

thanks all