2019-08-15 IDN Scoping Team Call

Notes/ Action Items

ACTION ITEMS

- Staff to rephrase the sentence in the Option Paper: “Coordinate with the ccNSO to seek to ensure a consistent set of policies and procedures governing gTLD and to the extent possible, ccTLDs”. 

- The Scoping Team recommends the GNSO Council to send two or three liaison(s) to follow/monitor the ccNSO PDP 4, once it is starting. Council to make a call for volunteer for the liaison position, encouraging people with subject matter expertise to apply.

- Staff to check with GNSO-Secs Team about time zone rotation and help the Scoping Team identify appropriate time slots to organize biweekly meetings. 

NOTES

1. Roll Call & Brief Welcome

2. Background & 3. Scope of Work

- Issue with the IDN Tables is how the LGRs are applied in the second level and enforced on registry operators. Need more transparency about the process.

- RST is forcing Registry operators using LGRs in situation where ICANN approved IDN tables are already in IANA.

- Need people who are subject manner experts to staff the PDP for IDNs, if it happens.

- To have a liaison with the ccNSO would be helpful, but the GNSO cannot sync everything with the ccNSO. GNSO doesn’t have to expect full synchronization with the ccNSO (due to nonconformity of certain areas, like emojis).

- Is the scoping team looking for a Councilor or a member in the scoping team to be a ccNSO PDP 4 liaison? 

- Rubens plans to propose another mechanism option for the consideration of the Scoping Team on the mailing list.

- Variant recommendations will impact RPMs. 

- The Scoping Team should state rationale related to the mechanism the it is recommending to the Council.

- If recommend EPDP just to shorten the process, it may be fine. But caution not to overburden the volunteers. 

- Don’t understand why EPDP is an option. May not be a big appetite from the GNSO Council to launch more PDPs / EPDPs right now. 

- An EPDP is just a PDP without issue report. This issue is pretty well understood so an EPDP suits the work.

-  Separate the Variant TLD/ccNSO coordination issues from the IDN Implementation Guidelines / IDN Tables. The first two concern with the top level domain names, and the second two concern with the second level.

- IDN Implementation Guidelines and IDN Tables also tie with the coordination with the ccNSO. So coordination with ccNSO apply to all three areas. 

- While it is unlikely ccNSO will ever adopt binding policies, some kind of seal might work. We could create a "Domain Industry IDN Usual Practices" and a ccTLD could say they commit to follow those practices.

- ccNSO policies for IDNs might be binding only to non IDN ccTLDs , IDN ccTLDs are not part of ccNSO yet

- The Scoping Team should review the Specification 6 of the RA; the IDN guidelines have evolved in an inconsistent way .

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to rephrase the sentence in the Option Paper: “Coordinate with the ccNSO to seek to ensure a consistent set of policies and procedures governing gTLD and to the extent possible, ccTLDs”. 

- ACTION ITEM: The Scoping Team recommends the GNSO Council to send two or three liaison(s) to follow/monitor the ccNSO PDP 4, once it is starting. Council to make a call for volunteer for the liaison position, encouraging people with subject matter expertise to apply.

3. Working Method

- No discussion

4. Next Steps

- The Scoping Team aims to propose a mechanism to the Council by ICANN66.

- Try meet biweekly, doodle for a new time, consider regional rotation (consult with GNSO-Secs team to find appropriate time slots).

- ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with GNSO-Secs Team about time zone rotation and help the Scoping Team identify appropriate time slots to organize biweekly meetings.