00:25:21 Javier Rúa-Jovet: all ok 00:25:21 Kimberly Carlson: Welcome to today’s ccPDP4 IDN Working Group Teleconference #5 on 17 November at 13:00 UTC. In the interest of time, there will be no roll call. Apologies: Yudho Giri Sucahyo . As a reminder, all calls are recorded; recordings will be posted on the public wiki (https://community.icann.org/x/wozzC). Please mute your phones and microphones when not speaking to avoid background noise and echoing. This call is governed under ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en 00:26:33 Javier Rúa-Jovet: This is my first meting ever in a ccPDP! 00:28:44 Kimberly Carlson: Background material can also be found on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/wozzC 00:30:18 Javier Rúa-Jovet: nop 00:38:03 Michael Bauland: Maybe "only the terretories shall be eligible to be assigned IDN ccTLD strings." 00:38:32 Michael Bauland: then it's open, who acutally selects them. 00:39:08 Michael Bauland: of Course "territories" (without the typo) 00:39:16 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: I would like to thanks all members for their support. I hope we will continue to work as a cohesive group. 00:39:49 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: I am specially thankful to Alireza to ensure smooth working of WG 00:40:28 Javier Rúa-Jovet: I have no problem with this use of word territory. 00:41:41 Peter Koch: thanks, Bart 00:41:43 Javier Rúa-Jovet: yep 00:41:54 Kenny Huang: thanks 00:43:13 Oksana Prykhodko: Will we work with results of GAC Geographic Names WG outcomes? 00:44:52 Oksana Prykhodko: I will 00:46:12 Anna Karakhanyan: Will be very thankful, Oksana 00:46:17 Javier Rúa-Jovet: just to note that this section prefers use of the concept "country code", whilst the prior used "territory". I have no problem with this, given the explanation for prior section. 00:46:41 Javier Rúa-Jovet: yep 00:48:29 Peter Koch: the doc ref’d in line nine is RFC 6912 00:49:36 Peter Koch: not updated nor obsoleted afaik 00:50:17 Jaap Akkerhuis: I really need to check directly. I guess we don’t refer to the generic DNS RFCs 00:50:17 Peter Koch: dowe _have)_ a reference to the guidelines? 00:50:26 Jiankang Yao: The rfcs listed are new versions of idn 00:50:43 Kenny Huang: There RFCs are still new and valid 00:50:44 Peter Koch: it’s the IDNS2008 set 00:50:47 Sarmad Hussain: Should we look into including RFC5894 and RFC5895? 00:51:12 Joke Braeken: RZ-LGR: Root Zone Label Generation Rules 00:51:17 Dennis Tan: RFC 6912 informs the Root Zone LGR. Would it make sense to use the latter than the former as a guideline? 00:51:26 Peter Koch: ’94 and ’95 are ‘informational’ only 00:54:07 Oksana Prykhodko: Could you please share on e-mail list the whole list of valid RFCs on IDN? 00:54:29 Dennis Tan: In principle, I don’t think it is right to require adherence/compliance/conformance to RFCs that are not Standard documents 00:54:36 Dennis Tan: So, I agree with Peter 00:56:05 Sarmad Hussain: IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/implementation-guidelines-2012-02-25-en 00:56:17 Peter Koch: tnx! 00:56:22 Sarmad Hussain: Current applicable version is 3.0 00:57:11 Dennis Tan: @Oksana…. the IDNA protocol is defined in RFCs 5890-93; in addition there are informational RFCs 5894-95 (implementation guidelines of sorts) 00:57:49 Peter Koch: so, the guidelines are for (g)TLD registry policy? 00:58:01 Sarmad Hussain: Root Zone Label Generation Rules: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en 00:59:34 Dennis Tan: The ICANN IDN Implementation Guidelines are enforceable upon gTLD registries, and recommended for ccTLDs, albeit IDN ccTLDs are required to follow them per the Fast Track process (afaik) 01:01:06 Oksana Prykhodko: @Dennis thank you very much! 01:01:06 Peter Koch: thanks, Dennis, but that was likely for lack of formal policy, which we are supposed to work on 01:01:58 Oksana Prykhodko: @Anna https://gac.icann.org/activity/new-gtlds-subsequent-rounds-geographic-names-as-tlds-wt5 01:02:05 Peter Koch: my last post missed the ‘?’ at the end 01:07:03 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: 2.1.1. IV is good with modifications as indicated 01:10:14 Javier Rúa-Jovet: +1 @Anil 01:10:16 Peter Koch: the focus on ‘number’ is confusing here 01:11:00 Oksana Prykhodko: I agree that nobody can determine number of IDN ccTLDs per country, but it is necessary to have some precautions for disputed territories (to avoid, for example, IDN in language of occupants) 01:11:39 Peter Koch: indeed, delicate issue, but not a ‘number’ issue … 01:16:17 Oksana Prykhodko: Maybe we can make the list of questions for further discussion (in small groups, for example)? 01:16:31 Peter Koch: i’m fine continuing with the criteria, but it would be good to learn about experience from applying those and whether things were contentious 01:18:30 Peter Koch: RFC 2119 is not necessarily the best fit for policy 01:19:23 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Must seems more mandatory than Should! 01:19:28 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: Yes I agree with you bart 01:20:25 Mirjana Tasic: Descriptions from the dictionary should be included 01:21:25 Kenny Huang: Support the way of discussion 01:21:37 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: Yes this approach is good 01:21:40 Mirjana Tasic: This way is OK 01:23:09 Kimberly Carlson: 01 December next call 01:23:20 Kenny Huang: 1300 UTC 01:23:39 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: Yes I agree with kenny 01:24:03 Yuri Takamatsu: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/idn-cctld-strings.htm 01:24:12 Yuri Takamatsu: https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/Policy+Development+Process+%28ccPDP4%29+-+%28de-%29selection+of+IDN+ccTLD+Strings 01:24:44 Anna Karakhanyan: Me too agree with 01 December, 13:00 UTC 01:25:09 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Thx to all! Bye! 01:25:18 Javier Rúa-Jovet: Good call! 01:25:21 Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC): Thank you all bye for now 01:25:23 Oksana Prykhodko: Thank you, bye! 01:25:24 Kimberly Carlson: Thank you all, bye. 01:25:25 Anil Kumar Jain CEO NIXI India: Thank you everyone 01:25:26 Jeff Bedser (SSAC): thank you all! 01:25:26 Peter Koch: bye 01:25:27 Kenny Huang: Thank you Bart