AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Versions Compared

Old Version 57

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

compared with

New Version 58

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Table of Contents
maxLevel34
typeflat

See GNSO Workspace: Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)

...

Policy Track Issues

Charter Questions

Charter Questions Discussed with CPWG #EPDP Draft Recs / IG Status #

A. Consistent definition and technical utilization of RZ-LGR

  • a1: RZ-LGR as  sole authoritative source
  • a2: Any standing of self-identified variants
  • a3: Any challenge process to RZ-LGR variant dispositions
  • a4: Where script of application not supported by RZ-LGR
  • a5: Any ceiling value for variant allocation 
  • a6: Impact of possible non-full backward compatibility of future version of RZ-LGR on existing delegations
  • a7: Allowing single character IDNs
  • a8: Catch-all
  • a9: TLD label statuses (taxonomy)
  • a10: TLD label statuses (changes)
  • a1, a2, a3 on 24 Nov 2021, 1 & 8 Dec 2021
  • a4, a5, a6, a7 on 2 Feb 2022
  • Revisited a5, a6 on 2 Mar 2022
  • a8 has been parked since it's a catch-all question
  • a9, a10 on 18 May 2022
  • Revisited a7 part 1 and a10 (with 2nd reading) on 6 Jul 2022
  • Recap of a7 part 1 and conclusion to a7 part 2 pending 2 

=> Phase 1 Initial Report

  • a1: Rec PR 1.1 Stable (Group 1 CQ): RZ-LGR as sole source to calculate variant labels, disposition values
  • a2: No recommendation needed(Group 1 CQ)
  • a3 Rec 1.2 & IG 1.3 Stable (Group 1 CQ), check for an Open Item 
  • a4: No recommendation needed (Group 1 CQ)
  • a5: Rec 1.4, Rec 1.5 & IG 1.6 Stable after 2nd reading  (Group 1 CQ) 
  • a6: Rec 1.7, Rec 1.8, Rec 1.9 & IG 1.10 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ)
  • a7 part 1: Rec 1.11 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ)
  • a3:  
  • a4: No recommendation needed 
  • a5: 
  • a6: 
  • a7 part 1: 
  • a7 part 2: a7 part 2: Draft text circulated for 1st reading 
  • a8: Parked since is catch-all question
  • a9: Rec 1.12 Stable (Group 1 CQ)a10: Rec 1.13 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ): 
  • a10: 

B. IDN Variant TLD Management: "Same entity" at the top-level

  • b1: Same entity top level
  • b2: Same entity back end
  • b3: Any additional requirements beyond b1 and b2
  • b4: Process to obtain variant labels
  • b4a: Role of "withheld for same entity"
  • b5: Extension of restrictions on community, brand to variant labels
  • b1, b2, b3, b4 + prefaced db1 on 16 Mar 2022 
  • b4a (re: string similarity) Hybrid Model prefaced on 12 Oct 2022 - straw poll conducted
  • b4 revisited on 2 Nov 2022 - straw poll conducted
  • Recap of b5 pending
  • b1: Rec PR 2.1 Stable : Allocatable variant label for existing IDN gTLD from 2012 round only allocatable or withheld for that registry operator
  • b2: (Group 2 CQ)b2: Rec 2.2 & Rec 2.3 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 2 CQ)
  • b3: No recommendation needed(Group 2 CQ)
  • b4: Draft text circulated for 1st reading 
  • b4a: Parked, pending e1 deliberation
  • PR 3.1: Allocatable variant label cannot precede primary
  • b4a: PR 3.2: Future registry operator can only apply for allocatable variant label during application round
  • b5: b5: Rec 2.8 Stable (Group 2 CQ)

C. IDN Variant TLD Management: "Same entity" at the second-level

  • c1: Same entity second level
  • c2: Reconcile SubPro rec with existing RA
  • c3: Mechanism to identify registrant - ROID
  • c3a: If use ROID, anything else?
  • c4: Harmonization of IDN tables; consider existing SLD
  • c4a: Disposition of variant labels across TLD can differ
  • c5: Methods to harmonize IDN tables
  • c6: Use of RFC7940
  • c1, c2 pending
  • c1: Parked, to defer (Group 4 CQ)
  • c2: Parked, to defer (Group 4 CQ)
  • c3: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)
  • c3a: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)
  • c4: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)
  • c4a: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)
  • c5: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)
  • c6: Deferred (Group 4 CQ)

D. Adjustments in registry agreement, registry service, registry transition process, and other processes/procedures related to the domain name lifecycle

  • d1: Legal framework
  • d1a: Registry Agreement
  • d1b: 'Application' for future variant TLDs
  • d2: Lifecycle management of variant TLDs
  • d3: Same entity data escrow impact
  • d4: Same entity lifecycle second level
  • d5: Registration fees second level
  • d6: Transfer second level, voluntary and involuntary
  • d6a: UDRP impact on same entity principle
  • d7: Suspension of 1 domain impact to variant set
  • d7a: URS impact on same entity
  • d8: Catch-all
  • d1: No recommendation needed (Group 2 CQ)
  • d1a: Rec 2.4 Stable (Group 2 CQ)
  • d1b part 1: Rec 2.5 & Rec 2.7 stable after 3rd reading; Rec 2.6 pending post 3rd reading review (Group 2 CQ)PR 3.4: Future IDN gTLD primary and allocatable variants labels in one application 
  • d1b part 2: draft text circulated for 1st reading 
  • d2: Rec 3.4, Rec 3.5, Rec 3.6 & Rec 3.7 pending 2nd reading (Group 3 CQ)
  • d3: Rec 3.8 & IG 3.9 pending 2nd reading (Group 3 CQ)
  • d4: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • d5: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • d6: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • d7: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • d7a: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • d8: Parked since is catch-all question (Group 5 CQ)

E. Adjustments to objection process, string similarity review, string contention resolution, reserved strings, and other policies and procedures:

  • e1: Role of "withheld for the same entity"
  • e2: Criteria for objection
  • e3: String similarity (scope)
  • e3a: String similarity (consequences)
  • e4: String contention resolution
  • e5: Reserved strings & strings ineligible for delegation
  • e6: 2-character Latin IDN TLDs
  • e7: Catch-all (same entity - top level)
  • e1, e3, e3a, e4 (re: string similarity) Hybrid Model prefaced on 12 Oct 2022 - straw poll conducted
  • e2 part 1 & part 2, e5 part 1 & part 2 are pending
  • e1 part 1 on string similarity: Deliberations ongoing on String Similarity Small Group recommendation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e2 part 1: Rec 3.1 Stable (Group 3 CQ)
  • e1 part 2 on objections: Deliberations ongoing on String Similarity Small Group recommendations (Group 3 CQ)
  • e2 part 2: In deliberation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e3: Deliberations ongoing on String Similarity Small Group recommendation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e3a: Parked, pending deliberations on SS Small Group recommendation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e4: Parked, pending deliberations on SS Small Group recommendation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e5 part 1: Rec 3.2 Stable (Group 3 CQ)
  • e5 part 2: Draft text circulated for 1st reading 
  • e6: Draft text circulated for 1st reading 
  • e7: In deliberation (Group 3 CQ)
F. Adjustments to registration dispute resolution procedures and trademark protection mechanisms
  • f1: Same entity impact to TMCH top level
  • f2: Same entity impact to RPMs, URS, UDRP, etc top level

  • f1: Deferred (Group 6 CQ)
  • f2: Deferred (Group 6 CQ)
G. Process to update the IDN Implementation Guidelines
  • g1: Process to update IDN Guidelines
  • g1a: Differentiation for ccTLDs and gTLDs?

  • g1: Deferred (Group 7 CQ)
  • g2: Deferred (Group 7 CQ)

...

  • The EPDP Team resumed meetings on 5 Jan 2023.
  • The ALAC Team presented: 
    14presented: 

           14. And discussed with CPWG on 1 Feb 2023 the draft recommendation and rationale text for CQs A7, B4, D1b, E5 and E6 (presentation)

Phase 1 Initial Report

  • The ALAC Team presented to and consulted with CPWG:

           15. On 3 May 2023 - overview, structure, underlying principles, sec 4.1, sec 4.2 and sec 4.3.

...

Anchor
Meeting-3
Meeting-3
Update for 01 September CPWG:

...