Hello all

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

Welcome Maxim!

Welcome Mark!

looks good

Hello, Julie. Slightly late due to connectivity issues, but should be good now.

Happy to hear you were able to join, Mark, and sorry to hear there were issues.

For the Operational Track, you will see some suggestions from Council leadership on next steps in the near future

where will we see these Steve? During Ariel's presentation?

Separately, afterwards

Although we can speak about it today if you’d like and if there is time?

I'd be interested to understand the dependency, but do not have to cover today if there's not enough time.

the same entity item is the most poisoned from the legal perspective

Do we have people here involved with ccNSO PDP4 already?

for the definitions there is a need of the actual text

@Phillipe, I am

Thanks Dennis.

there were no legal review of the same entity principle , and how it affects URDP , URS e.t.c. and especially in existing TLDs

Many of these subjects are addressed in SubPro as well, so we are not starting from Square 1

@Maxim, as Ariel noted in her comments, that question about impact from IDN variant gTLDs on things like RPMs, is envisioned as part of the charter.

@Jeff, it is not just SubPro, but potentially RPMs too, so putting this EPDP in front of the next round is almost the sure way to delay it for a long time

@Donna, I forgot Ariel had these steps in the slides

There you go :)

the suggested guidelines were made by tech persons, without much of legal / operational review

and outside of the multistakeholder model

Where is the latest version of IDN Guidelines 4

Important that this is made clear in the Charter, and we should also consider putting a time limit on the Op. Track 1 work.

@Jeff https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf

what is the current state of affairs - IANA full of wrong IDN tables?

@Maxim, we have additional information about the design of IDN tables from the script communities. It is being reviewed if any the the IDN tables in IANA repository may be impacted.

@Sarmad, it would be important for work of this EPDP to know the % of the overall IDN TLDs , which tables need to be changed

Agree with Donna. Although I still have to get my head around what "consistency" means here technically, it's important that alignment goes as far as is reasonably conceivable.

The draft final report was published in August

I see the liaison as having a dual and complementary roles:To identify and report back discrepancies and how it may impactTo contribute to bringing the GNSO and IDN EPDP WG perspectives to the ccPDPand agree with inviting in the reverse cc liaison to the gnso epdp

Or are we talking about the latest version that the WG is looking AT

@Jeff, the latter.

It’s in respect of the iterative versions we are sharing with the WG.

Subpro is only about next round TLDs, not about all existing TLDs

what does it mean - IDN tables published by ICANN? currently those are published by IANA (PTI)

I would add to Donna's point that there should not be divergence from the SubPro recommendations in general since that did use input from a number of public comments, comments from Org, etc.

SubPro is not a policy yet, and it is a separate PDP

we should try

but SubPro had no review of the existing TLDs and what to do in those with the same entity principle there

@Jeff, I'm not sure I agree with your starting premise. The IDN Scoping Team was run in parallel, so this is why from a process perspective that we understand the two efforts, potential for intersection and divergence and how that is managed.

That is why I used the term "build on"

So if there is a reason that existing TLDs need to be treated differently, then that is something this group should control

we need to review it, and hopefully we find some kind of resolution, but I am bit pessimistic (example, two companies have rights for string 1 and one has string1_var1.tld1 and another has string2_var2.tld2) - who has more rights?

we can not build that bit on something not yet existing, so it needs to be developed

for future TLDs it is simpler, no legacy issues

if tld1 and tld2 are IDN Var TLDs they should not currently be exisiting?

old hand

at least for gTLD

i mean at least one of them should not exist

@Edmon if those are deemed to be variants - only one entity should control all variants

or a single TLD with 2 scripts

I have to drop in 2 minutes. I believe we should put a work plan in place to get this done ASAP (since this is just the charter). This is important according to the ICANN Board and MAY create some dependencies. So can we put some dates associated with the deliverables

@Jeff and Steve, is it possible to get a copy of the SubPro chartering questions as it related to consideration of IDNs?

There is no reason why we should not be able to do this within next 60-90 days at most

@Jeff, there is no reason we should

I agree Jeff, we should be able to get this done in reasonably good time.

@Maxim?

Your positive of my double negative is confusing :)

@Donna, sure, added to the notes as an AI and will investigate before sharing

Having heard all perspectives, I think we can do this in good time. It could be actually Expedited;

@Jeff , the community is stretched thin, it is not the most top priority item

@Maxim - Then the COuncil would need to go to the board and take a view as to whether there are dependencies with SubPro

EPDP is a form of PDP, do not expect the same pace as first EPDP

This is an ePDP

I think we might have a poll for meeting times

I need to drop. But we should work backwards to try and have a charter within 60 days

@Jeff, it does not mean we have to have a lot of meeting in a fast succession

meetings

I need to drop...thanks :) I am from Vienna, Virginia (20 mins from Ariel )

two weeks - XMass in US , but after NY, we have two weeks of public holidays, so it is 30 days less

We should be inclusive of Pitinan and Sarmad

Juan is in my general timezone, which is fine, like 1500. He probably had a work conflict.

+1 for Dennis

I'm happy to second the nomination of Dennis

Thanks for the vote of confidence

+1 Dennis

We do have UA-EAI meetings at this exact time on alternate weeks. It wouldn't be terrible for me if we did 1600 UTC instead so it doesnt clash, but up to the group

We're coming up to holiday season

Good job Ariel, thanks everyone.

are we expecting a next meeting next week?

Thanks for leading this Ariel

ok thx

Sounds good… thank you and good bye

thanks all