I have a question about the document sent “Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules 1.2”

it has text referencing to be ‘community developed’ a lot, and is was not a product of a proper PDP process

and it is bit misleading

policy can not be updated prior to the Policy Development Process

This is the email on the screen: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-council-idn-scoping/2019-October/000038.html

Michele Neylon sends his apology for this call.

@Maxim, what are in the two phases in your mind?

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)

new hand

ok

it should be named so (or linguistic experts community), not the whole community

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en

it is not a policy, but internal ICANN process

and it can not change policies

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

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

because it is not possible to separate operational and legal sides

new hand

Please note Steve has hand up too

@Edmon, hand up as well

ok thx

like RPMs PDP and SubPro PDP do (substreams)

but Registries and Registrars have to follow RFCs created in IETF

so it might happen

after Steve

I agree with Steve. The reason the Council created this group is to be able to rely on the “expert” to scope the PDP.

I think some more SGs would like to participate in the chartering team

haha, sorry

Could we start calling Root Zone LGR as RLGR and second level as just LGR?

to avoid further confusion

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

or RLGR and SLGR

Root zone LGR will affect Applicants and Registries, Registrars and Registrants, the same for Second level

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)

SubPro is about what was not ok in the 2012 round, and it was a lot

so there is no simple solution for complex set of issues

Can i steal about 5 minutes for AOB?

no EPDP please

Why not Maxim?

what is the reason to avoid the first step?

EPDP is different from PDP as it does not have an Issue Report

It does not need to have a ‘constrained’ timeline like the one for temp specs

But what is your reasoning against an EPDP Maxim?

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)

it is for the Council to decide

the set of documents is not perfect , should not be used , not holistic and does not cover concerns of SGs

but if the issues report is produced by staff the same non holistic concerns would arise would it not maxim? :-P

depends on the text

and as I wrote - it is up to the whole GNSO Council

cross liaisons between ccNSO - GNSO?

I need 30 seconds

great, thanks. we will include this as a topic on the October Council meeting

yup

thanks

we have time till 14oct?

I meant next meeting

24 oct - GNSO council , and docs need to be provided 10 days earlier

or better 11

what time?

in UTC

03:00 i believe

yes

subpro time

3 utc

on 10th

have to leave now. Bye

coudl we make doodle poll for times dates?

bye all and thanks

Thanks Edmon and all

Thanks all