Logo

IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team
Terri Agnew
21:46
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
21:54
Please note: raised hand option has been adjusted to bottom tool bar/ reactions section.
Maxim Alzoba
22:41
Hello all
Terri Agnew
22:46
Welcome Maxim
Jeff Neuman
24:11
CAn you give us access to put comments in the mapping document?
Jeff Neuman
24:17
Right now we only have view only
Maxim Alzoba
24:23
+1
Ariel Liang
24:28
Mapping doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jQrzU9NDOlMwNw4zFcndOFEYhSIo3EAXAHTVirsMup8/edit#gid=0
Ariel Liang
24:29
done
Jeff Neuman
24:34
thanks!
Jeff Neuman
27:23
FYI, it appears all of the IDN recommendation from SubPro have Full Consensus
Edmon Chung
30:34
this is just a mapping document i understand, and the "extracts" are taken from the various documents (and each box is inevitably "out of context")
Jeff Neuman
30:48
I think there are questions related to how to deal with legacy TLDs
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
31:20
Yep
Maxim Alzoba
32:53
then we need to ensure no old TLD is out of compliance on this
Maxim Alzoba
34:08
then this might need to be redirected clearly
Maxim Alzoba
35:52
subpro was intended to regulate future
Maxim Alzoba
36:18
but no new TLDs are expected from the past
Dennis Tan
36:43
one example could be the application of variant TLD labels from existing TLDs
Maxim Alzoba
37:05
but it will be a future TLD item
Maxim Alzoba
37:25
so it will be regulated, not the old one
Maxim Alzoba
38:03
and nothing prevents ICANN from not launching the new one until all things are sorted out in both
Jeff Neuman
38:09
@Dennis correct. But the WG needs to understand that recommendations dealing with the past must be "Consensus Policies" which are a higher standard than what can be approved for TLDs in the future
Maxim Alzoba
40:18
then a disclaimer might be added - that additional consideration is required , where the legacy (not future TLDs ) are might be affected
Maxim Alzoba
41:41
are all existing TLDs compliant with RZ-LRG rules?
Sarmad Hussain
42:33
For the RZ-LGR scripts finalized, yes.
Maxim Alzoba
43:14
but is it 100%?
Maxim Alzoba
43:17
of all TLDs?
Maxim Alzoba
43:46
to avoid situation where a live TLD is killed for the sake of RZ-LGR
Maxim Alzoba
44:20
most probably the situation where TLD1 is from the past is a variant of the TLD2 from the future - should be reviewed
Maxim Alzoba
49:14
we need to mark it somewhere , to avoid forgetting it
Ariel Liang
49:19
What Maxim discussed would likely be part of the discussion/deliberation of the future EPDP. This group is to focus on developing charter questions that would help facilitate future discussion on this, in terms of how to deal with current/existing TLDs
Edmon Chung
49:57
i think we should avoid the term "apply for" for variant TLDs for the current TLDs (or future for that matter)
Maxim Alzoba
49:59
@Ariel, I think it might be important in terms of what the future group does/does not
Maxim Alzoba
50:15
new TLDs are always apply for
Ariel Liang
51:05
Yes, hence the aim is to draft the charter questions in a precise manner
Maxim Alzoba
51:05
on hold after passing the application is way better
Edmon Chung
51:10
"apply for" should be used for "the" TLD and "request" or some other term should be used for "activation/use" of a variant TLD
Maxim Alzoba
51:24
but the notification should be given in advance
Maxim Alzoba
52:22
the Council does not have reasons to say that SubPro materials are not good so far
Mark Datysgeld
54:32
There is a point there though in pointing out how this was arrived at
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
54:37
I'm not talking about 'confirming' but rather 'acknowledging'
Maxim Alzoba
55:55
it is more about a ‘hold’ tag, than about competitor application TLDs
Maxim Alzoba
56:53
not processed = the dead application
Edmon Chung
57:26
i thought that was "not proceed"
Edmon Chung
57:49
but anyway its fine :-D
Edmon Chung
59:12
i think subpro's recommendation is good
Edmon Chung
01:00:20
it might be more clear when we look a the draft charter text
Ariel Liang
01:02:07
Yes, it would be helpful for the DT to point out whether the charter questions are clearly drafted to reflect the discussion here and include necessary context. This table is to show potential gap that may need to be addressed
Jeff Neuman
01:02:18
By the way, the TSG was not a policy group
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:29
+1 it was not
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:39
just an interest group
Jeff Neuman
01:02:51
And what to do with an application is NOT a technical question at all
Ariel Liang
01:02:53
In other word, it may be more efficient to discuss the substance when we are reviewing the draft questions wording
Jeff Neuman
01:04:33
This is an area where I agree about the GAP and that it must be considered by this ePDP
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:44
am I only one who looses audio of Dennis?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:07:45
Dennis your audio is breaking up
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:59
I did not hear last 2 minutes
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:09
dial out?
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:36
old
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:47
I did not hear your sentences
Ariel Liang
01:08:51
I think Maxim’s comment may be reflected in this draft charter question c4: c4) [Implementation Question] Taking into consideration the circumstance noted in a6), it is possible that two or more previously delegated independent TLDs are found to be variants of each other under RZ-LGR but they are not operated by the same Registry Operator (or back-end registry service provider). How to remedy such a situation so that the “same entity” rule is followed?
Jeff Neuman
01:09:27
Agree that the WG needs to look at existing TLDs
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:34
another issue is same entities for a domain (old TLDs )
Jeff Neuman
01:09:36
But for future TLDs, no need
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:46
new hand
Jeff Neuman
01:11:50
I agree with the GAP in 9. In 8 I think Questions 2 and 3 will be implementation of SubPro for future TLDs.
Jeff Neuman
01:12:54
variants SLDs of variant TLDs :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:57
yes
Jeff Neuman
01:14:38
By manage, you also include bundling or blocking?
Edmon Chung
01:14:52
both i think
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:55
it should be reflected (researched)
Jeff Neuman
01:16:17
@Edmon, right. I can't imagine there are actually existing TLDs in the root that are variants of each other? And then I can't imagine within that edge case, that there are different operators. It just seems so remote to have already happened and no one has noticed
Edmon Chung
01:16:48
.CHINA and .TAIWAN
Edmon Chung
01:16:54
are the only ones but they are not gTLDs
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:58
then all TLDs should be checked for existence of such collisions
Jeff Neuman
01:17:10
How are .china and .Taiwan variants?
Edmon Chung
01:17:17
sorry the Chinese version
Terri Agnew
01:17:21
Next meeting: The IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting team Group call is scheduled on Tuesday, 19 January 2021 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Edmon Chung
01:17:29
SimplifiedCHINA and traditionCHINA
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:29
we can not speak about politics here :)
Edmon Chung
01:17:30
etc.
Ariel Liang
01:17:38
This has been captured in the “Data & Metrics” section in the charter — Number of labels generally deemed as the same (e.g., variant TLDs under RZ-LGR) that were previously delegated in the root zone as independent TLDs or were reserved names (a6, c4)
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:17:55
Thanks Dennis
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:01
thanks all
Edmon Chung
01:18:13
.<chinaInTraditionalChinese> and .<chinaInSimplifiedChinese>
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:14
bye
Edmon Chung
01:18:16
sorry for the confusion
Pitinan Kooarmornpatana - ICANN org
01:18:19
Thank you
Edmon Chung
01:18:20
thx bye