Logo

Andrea Glandon's Personal Meeting Room
Maxim Alzoba
31:45
I have a question about the document sent “Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules 1.2”
Maxim Alzoba
32:32
it has text referencing to be ‘community developed’ a lot, and is was not a product of a proper PDP process
Maxim Alzoba
32:49
and it is bit misleading
Maxim Alzoba
33:54
policy can not be updated prior to the Policy Development Process
Ariel Liang
34:33
This is the email on the screen: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-council-idn-scoping/2019-October/000038.html
Nathalie Peregrine
34:46
Michele Neylon sends his apology for this call.
Steve Chan
41:44
@Maxim, what are in the two phases in your mind?
Maxim Alzoba
45:10
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)
Maxim Alzoba
46:04
new hand
Maxim Alzoba
49:53
ok
Maxim Alzoba
50:45
it should be named so (or linguistic experts community), not the whole community
edmon
54:40
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en
Maxim Alzoba
57:04
it is not a policy, but internal ICANN process
Maxim Alzoba
57:20
and it can not change policies
Maxim Alzoba
59:23
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
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:05
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
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:27
because it is not possible to separate operational and legal sides
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:52
new hand
Ariel Liang
01:04:07
Please note Steve has hand up too
Steve Chan
01:04:08
@Edmon, hand up as well
edmon
01:04:16
ok thx
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:21
like RPMs PDP and SubPro PDP do (substreams)
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:31
but Registries and Registrars have to follow RFCs created in IETF
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:38
so it might happen
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:16
after Steve
Pam Little
01:10:38
I agree with Steve. The reason the Council created this group is to be able to rely on the “expert” to scope the PDP.
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:48
I think some more SGs would like to participate in the chartering team
Steve Chan
01:10:51
haha, sorry
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:57
Could we start calling Root Zone LGR as RLGR and second level as just LGR?
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:07
to avoid further confusion
Ariel Liang
01:14:16
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
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:28
or RLGR and SLGR
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:43
Root zone LGR will affect Applicants and Registries, Registrars and Registrants, the same for Second level
Steve Chan
01:17:39
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)
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:20
SubPro is about what was not ok in the 2012 round, and it was a lot
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:47
so there is no simple solution for complex set of issues
Steve Chan
01:19:09
Can i steal about 5 minutes for AOB?
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:34
no EPDP please
Steve Chan
01:19:41
Why not Maxim?
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:53
what is the reason to avoid the first step?
Ariel Liang
01:19:54
EPDP is different from PDP as it does not have an Issue Report
Ariel Liang
01:20:20
It does not need to have a ‘constrained’ timeline like the one for temp specs
Steve Chan
01:21:20
But what is your reasoning against an EPDP Maxim?
Dennis Tan
01:21:21
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)
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:42
it is for the Council to decide
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:34
the set of documents is not perfect , should not be used , not holistic and does not cover concerns of SGs
edmon
01:24:53
but if the issues report is produced by staff the same non holistic concerns would arise would it not maxim? :-P
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:12
depends on the text
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:56
and as I wrote - it is up to the whole GNSO Council
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:15
cross liaisons between ccNSO - GNSO?
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:51
I need 30 seconds
Steve Chan
01:28:53
great, thanks. we will include this as a topic on the October Council meeting
Steve Chan
01:30:10
yup
Steve Chan
01:30:11
thanks
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:15
we have time till 14oct?
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:22
I meant next meeting
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:40
24 oct - GNSO council , and docs need to be provided 10 days earlier
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:48
or better 11
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:14
what time?
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:20
in UTC
Steve Chan
01:31:30
03:00 i believe
Ariel Liang
01:31:33
yes
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:41
subpro time
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:44
3 utc
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:53
on 10th
maarten.simon
01:31:59
have to leave now. Bye
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:04
coudl we make doodle poll for times dates?
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:32
bye all and thanks
Pam Little
01:32:35
Thanks Edmon and all
Ariel Liang
01:32:41
Thanks all