Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Emily Barabas (staff), Ariel Liang (staff), Nigel Hickson, Joseph Yee, Jeff Neuman, Hadia El Miniawi (joining 30 mins late), Anil Jain |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to develop a proposal to scope further outreach to the three GPs with respect to additional work.
Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 5 May 2022 1. Roll Call & SOI (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
3. Continue discussion of charter question D2 (40 minutes) Slide 4: Charter Question D2: In order to ensure that the same entity principle is maintained for a gTLD and its allocated variant TLD labels, what are the operational and legal impacts to the:
Implicit Dependency with D1a: “Should each TLD label be the subject of a separate Registry Agreement with ICANN? If not, should each TLD label along with its variant labels be subject to one Registry Agreement with the same entity?” Slide 10: SubPro Context To the extent that the TLD were to change hands at any point after delegation, the variant TLDs must remain linked contractually, which should be considered a persistent requirement (e.g., this would impact gTLD registry transition procedures, including EBERO). Staff Paper Context
In the case where a Registry Agreement is terminated as a result of a TM-PDDRP determination, the same entity rule would continue to apply so that the allocated and delegated variant TLD labels in the set would beassigned to the same entity together. Slide 11: Questions for Discussion
Discussion:
4. Introduction to charter question D3 (30 minutes): Slide 13: Charter Question D3: In order to ensure that the same entity principle is maintained, what are the operational and legal impacts to the data escrow policies, if any. Slide 15: Question for Discussion Registry Data Escrow: The EPDP recommends that each gTLD and its variant labels (if any) are to be subject to one Registry Agreement with the same registry operator. Given this preliminary recommendation, do the technical specifications and legal requirements of the data escrow policy for gTLDs need to be adjusted in order to account for the possibility of having more than one label under one registry agreement? Discussion:
5. Feedback from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Generation Panels - A7 Part 2 (10 mins) Slide 17: Charter Question A7: What mechanism or criteria should be used to identify the scripts/languages appropriate for single-character TLDs? Once those scripts/languages are identified, what mechanism or criteria should be used to identify a specific list of allowable characters which can be used as a single-character TLD within such scripts/languages? Should any specific implementation guidance be provided? Furthermore, should the relevant GP tag these code points in the RZ-LGR for a consistent analysis and to ease their identification and algorithmic calculation?
Slide 18: Q1. What is the definition of ideograph or ideogram? 1a. Based on this definition, are all Han characters considered ideograph or ideogram? 1b. If not, does the definition clearly provide a way to identify which Han characters are ideograph or ideogram? Chinese (Chair response): All Han characters are ideographs Japanese (GP response): Except for “々” (U+3005), all Han (Kanji) characters are ideographs Korean (GP response): All Han (Hanja) characters are ideographs Slide 19: GP Outreach: Questions 2 & 3:
Q2. Is it possible for the three GPs to coordinate and develop criteria by which to identify a subset of the Han script allowed for single-character gTLDs that present no risk of user confusion? Alternatively, is it possible to develop criteria by which to identify a list of Han characters that may introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities and should NOT be allowed for single-character gTLDs? Q3. Is it possible for the three GPs to coordinate and develop criteria for the evaluation of future single-character gTLD applications in Han script, particularly in the context of string confusion, to ensure they are introduced to the root-zone in a conservative manner? Chinese (Chair response):
Not all Han characters are suitable to be applied as a single character TLD. E.g., 丿 (U+4E3F), 乀 (U+4E40), 乁(U+4E41) are used as basic radicals rather than full characters with semantic meaning Japanese (GP response): It may be safer to disallow Han characters that are defined as visually identical to Kana characters in Japanese RZ-LGR (see Section 7), but it is up to Integration Panel and ICANN to decide Korean (GP response):
Slide 20: GP Outreach: Question 4:
Q4. Is it feasible for the three GPs to reconvene to conduct the above mentioned work, and if so, what is the estimated level of effort and time required. Chinese (Chair response): A six-month period may be needed to generate a limited allowable list from the most conservative perspective Japanese (GP response): No answer Korean (GP response): Not sure how long it will take Reminder that these are preliminary responses with the with an eye towards future coordination work to develop more full answers, but these are just the preliminary responses from the GP chairs. Observations from Sarmad Hussain, Staff:
Discussion:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to develop a proposal to scope further outreach to the three GPs with respect to additional work. 6. AOB (3 minutes): None. |