ICANN IDN Variant TLDs Issues Project
Coordination Team Meeting, Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Meeting Agenda and Notes:
- Welcome and Roll Call (start recording)
On the call:
Raymond Doctor, Hayley Laframboise, Dennis Jennings, Karen Lentz, Xiaodong Lee, Cary Karp, Sarmad Hussein, Alexei Sozonov, Nicholas Ostler, Vladmimir Shadrunov, Manal Ismail, Francisco Arias, Harald Alvestrand, Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos, Vaggelis Segredakis, Andrew Sullivan, Joseph Yee, Kurt Pritz, Alexey Mykhaylov,
Apologies:
Baher Esmat, Neha Gupta, Akshat Joshi, Mahesh Kulkarni, Patrick Jones
- Review of Action Items from last week’s call.
- December Face-to-Face Meeting (Naela)
- Visa issues
- Travel and accommodation issues
Meeting is confirmed for 12-13 December in Marina del Rey, California.
13 of the 17 members have confirmed they will attend the meeting in person and 2 more plan to attend remotely.
Tickets for 9 travelers are already booked.
We are not aware of any visa issues. Everyone who has requested an invitation letter should have received it by now. If you have any issues, please contact me (naela.sarras@icann.org and cc Joseph DeJesus joseph.dejesus@icann.org)
- Taxonomy of variants (Andrew & Nicholas)
- Update on discussions on list
Andrew sent a new taxonomy, incorporating changes from Manal which he incorporated. Nicholas responded to the document and accepting the changes made while pointing out the other items. Nicholas highlighted the changes made.
Action item: Andrew will take this discussion to the list.
- Lists of Valid Code points and variant derivation logic per script/language
(Andrew | discussion in the list):
- Summary of Discussion
Andrew believes discussion in the above topic may help in determining that our discussion on this topic is close to being done.
- Implications for ccTLDs?
The issue exposed that there has to be a policy choice in which the entire set of registratble codepoints is consistent no matter who submitted the codepoint in question.
Vaggelis: reminded that someone from ccNSO should be involved in this discussion.
Action item: Dennis to think through Vaggelis’s request and get back to the list.
Action item: Cary to send a note to the group to highlight this issue.
Sarmad: There are two aspects of this issue. One is to have a list of codepoints and variants for a particular script. However, what is not clear is what is going to be the process in which this is implemented and enforced. Current policy is that a registry would only have to submit a variant table.
Action item: Sarmad will send a note to the list on the above
- Closure of topic
- Evaluation of Applications for Variant gTLDs
- Identification of issues highlighted in Case Study Reports
Karen sent a note to the team earlier and received notes from the Devanagari team. In the write-up, Karen looked through the case study reports and tried to account for these evaluation issues in their reports.
Found that the issues are heavily dependent on types of variants.
In the case if we adopt a unified rule, the evaluation process is less complex, the task becomes accounting for the variants.
In the case if we don’t have an authoritative list, and making determination on case-by-case basis, the issues are more complex.
In addition, there are a number of states (activated, blocked, reserved, etc), there needs to be rules about how a request moves between states and that would impact the evaluation issues.
Karen asked for questions or comments about the document.
Panagiotes: would like to have a little more time to review the document and perhaps comment by email.
Sarmad: For DNS stability and similarity panels. How will ICANN direct these panels to assess the variants in the new gTLD process (future). The lists submitted by the user will have some variants but not maybe all the variants? Dennis flagged that this issue is getting into the solutions phase and asked Sarmad to bring it up on the list.
Action item: Sarmad to bring this issue on the list
Action item: Dennis asked for team members to review the document and comment on the list.
- Selected Terminology (Nicholas)
- Update on discussions on list
Comments received since last week have come from Cary Karp and Raymod Doctor. There is still a question at the level of user confusability, whether it should be integrated in the definitions.
- AoB
Sarmad: brought up the set of issues raised in the reports? When do we plan to get to them? One of such issues is whois.
Dennis urged Sarmad to send to the list anything we may be missing.
Dennis also urged the team to send any issues to the mailing list.
