Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/2tcjap4b
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Dennis Tan, Satish Babu |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items Action Item 1: Leadership team will send proposed revisions to to Recommendation 2.3 under Charter Question B2 [docs.google.com], and Recommendations 2.5 and 2.6 under Charter Question D1b (part 2) [docs.google.com] to the mailing list to give those not on the call an opportunity to review the revised text. Action Item 2: Staff to consider if rationale for recommendation 2.5 can be further clarified, perhaps by adding “Where the primary label is sought with one or more variant labels at the same time.” Welcome and Chair Updates
Recommendation 2.3 under Charter Question B2 Proposed revision: Recommendation 2.3: If the registry operator of an IDN B2 Draft Rationale for Recommendations and Implementation Guidance: Rationale for Recommendation 2.2 and Recommendation 2.3: For feasible and consistent implementation of the “same entity” requirement at the top-level, the EPDP Team affirms to extend the SubPro PDP and the Staff Paper recommendations to existing gTLDs and their variant labels. The EPDP Team further recommends that the same back-end registry service provider must operate all delegated variant gTLD label(s) in the set at any given time.
Action Item 1: Leadership team will send proposed revisions to to Recommendation 2.3 under Charter Question B2 [docs.google.com], and Recommendations 2.5 and 2.6 under Charter Question D1b (part 2) [docs.google.com] to the mailing list to give those not on the call an opportunity to review the revised text. Recommendation 2.5 under Charter Question D1b (part 2)
Proposed revision:
Keep recommendation language for 2.5 as it is and revise rationale. Rationale for Recommendation 2.5: The EPDP Team noted SubPro PDP’s recommendation that future applications of new gTLDs “must be assessed in rounds”. The EPDP Team agreed that for the next application round and each subsequent round, an applicant who applies for a primary new IDN gTLD and some or all of its allocatable variant label(s) in the same set will only be required to submit one application for the set. This would allow for an efficient and streamlined process.
Action Item 2: Staff to consider if rationale can be further clarified, perhaps by adding “Where the primary label is sought with one or more variant labels at the same time.” Recommendation 2.6 under Charter Question D1b (part 2)
Proposed Revision:
|