00:31:45 Maxim Alzoba: I have a question about the document sent “Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules 1.2” 00:32:32 Maxim Alzoba: it has text referencing to be ‘community developed’ a lot, and is was not a product of a proper PDP process 00:32:49 Maxim Alzoba: and it is bit misleading 00:33:54 Maxim Alzoba: policy can not be updated prior to the Policy Development Process 00:34:33 Ariel Liang: This is the email on the screen: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-council-idn-scoping/2019-October/000038.html 00:34:46 Nathalie Peregrine: Michele Neylon sends his apology for this call. 00:41:44 Steve Chan: @Maxim, what are in the two phases in your mind? 00:45:10 Maxim Alzoba: I think we need to find parts which are not dependent one on another, for example purely technical/linguistic (as character tables based on linguistic studies) and tech/operational/legal (where we have prohibitions, what allowed, how to couple variants domains/strings, who prevails, what to do with applied to strings if something is wrong from perspective of char tables or varian ideas) 00:46:04 Maxim Alzoba: new hand 00:49:53 Maxim Alzoba: ok 00:50:45 Maxim Alzoba: it should be named so (or linguistic experts community), not the whole community 00:54:40 edmon: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en 00:57:04 Maxim Alzoba: it is not a policy, but internal ICANN process 00:57:20 Maxim Alzoba: and it can not change policies 00:59:23 Maxim Alzoba: history of things is not important from the legal perspective, might be useful for understanding of initial ideas and to ensure they are still actual/followed in the process 01:03:05 Maxim Alzoba: and about purely legal experts/Tech part - if we see that it is not necessary , then we have only one phase , where linguistic/tech/operational/legal things are all together 01:03:27 Maxim Alzoba: because it is not possible to separate operational and legal sides 01:03:52 Maxim Alzoba: new hand 01:04:07 Ariel Liang: Please note Steve has hand up too 01:04:08 Steve Chan: @Edmon, hand up as well 01:04:16 edmon: ok thx 01:05:21 Maxim Alzoba: like RPMs PDP and SubPro PDP do (substreams) 01:06:31 Maxim Alzoba: but Registries and Registrars have to follow RFCs created in IETF 01:06:38 Maxim Alzoba: so it might happen 01:09:16 Maxim Alzoba: after Steve 01:10:38 Pam Little: I agree with Steve. The reason the Council created this group is to be able to rely on the “expert” to scope the PDP. 01:10:48 Maxim Alzoba: I think some more SGs would like to participate in the chartering team 01:10:51 Steve Chan: haha, sorry 01:13:57 Maxim Alzoba: Could we start calling Root Zone LGR as RLGR and second level as just LGR? 01:14:07 Maxim Alzoba: to avoid further confusion 01:14:16 Ariel Liang: Just want to note that the scoping team had earlier discussion about the IDN guidelines, and they are documented toward the end of the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o_9bfnkKufrSxiJGxpNcOcfTK2VLWp5XYQvwe5qxJlc/edit#heading=h.4l14uuzc4nrt 01:14:28 Maxim Alzoba: or RLGR and SLGR 01:16:43 Maxim Alzoba: Root zone LGR will affect Applicants and Registries, Registrars and Registrants, the same for Second level 01:17:39 Steve Chan: I would re-phrase what i said earlier…it’s not necessarily about a narrow scope, but make the scope only as wide as it needs to be. I know that’s pretty obvious on the surface, but it’s easy to end up with a bloated scope (see SubPro) 01:18:20 Maxim Alzoba: SubPro is about what was not ok in the 2012 round, and it was a lot 01:18:47 Maxim Alzoba: so there is no simple solution for complex set of issues 01:19:09 Steve Chan: Can i steal about 5 minutes for AOB? 01:19:34 Maxim Alzoba: no EPDP please 01:19:41 Steve Chan: Why not Maxim? 01:19:53 Maxim Alzoba: what is the reason to avoid the first step? 01:19:54 Ariel Liang: EPDP is different from PDP as it does not have an Issue Report 01:20:20 Ariel Liang: It does not need to have a ‘constrained’ timeline like the one for temp specs 01:21:20 Steve Chan: But what is your reasoning against an EPDP Maxim? 01:21:21 Dennis Tan: Agree with Maxim, SubPro does not make sense to me. SubPro is about future TLDs, and the Variant TLD policy will impact existing TLDs (i.e. existing contracts) 01:21:42 Maxim Alzoba: it is for the Council to decide 01:22:34 Maxim Alzoba: the set of documents is not perfect , should not be used , not holistic and does not cover concerns of SGs 01:24:53 edmon: but if the issues report is produced by staff the same non holistic concerns would arise would it not maxim? :-P 01:25:12 Maxim Alzoba: depends on the text 01:25:56 Maxim Alzoba: and as I wrote - it is up to the whole GNSO Council 01:27:15 Maxim Alzoba: cross liaisons between ccNSO - GNSO? 01:27:51 Maxim Alzoba: I need 30 seconds 01:28:53 Steve Chan: great, thanks. we will include this as a topic on the October Council meeting 01:30:10 Steve Chan: yup 01:30:11 Steve Chan: thanks 01:30:15 Maxim Alzoba: we have time till 14oct? 01:30:22 Maxim Alzoba: I meant next meeting 01:30:40 Maxim Alzoba: 24 oct - GNSO council , and docs need to be provided 10 days earlier 01:30:48 Maxim Alzoba: or better 11 01:31:14 Maxim Alzoba: what time? 01:31:20 Maxim Alzoba: in UTC 01:31:30 Steve Chan: 03:00 i believe 01:31:33 Ariel Liang: yes 01:31:41 Maxim Alzoba: subpro time 01:31:44 Maxim Alzoba: 3 utc 01:31:53 Maxim Alzoba: on 10th 01:31:59 maarten.simon: have to leave now. Bye 01:32:04 Maxim Alzoba: coudl we make doodle poll for times dates? 01:32:32 Maxim Alzoba: bye all and thanks 01:32:35 Pam Little: Thanks Edmon and all 01:32:41 Ariel Liang: Thanks all