Page History

Agenda:

1. Roll Call and SOI Updates 
2. Welcome and Chair Updates 
3. Continued Discussion of Source Domain: D4 
4. Identifying the Same Registrant: C3, C3a 
5. Variant Domain Transaction Fees: D5 
6. AOB 

SESSION 1 ACTION ITEMS

• Limited the text for the definition of Source Domain Name by linking to the recommendation, to avoid redundant or contradictory text.
• Revise definition to ensure adherence of the same entity principle and make clear that the disposition value is a part of the definition.

SESSION 1 NOTES

Roll Call and SOI Updates 

• None

Welcome and Chair Updates 

• Started consensus call on Phase 1 recommendations and today is the deadline. Heard back from registrars and ALAC. No response is assumed to mean support. Expect to hear from the GAC as well. Once midnight hits, it means we have hit an enormous milestone and will deliver the Final Report to the Council no later than 9 Nov.
• Goal for sessions at ICANN78 is to make progress on Phase 2 questions.

Continued Discussion of Source Domain: D4 

• Slide 4: Refresher - Source Domain Name
• Slide 5: Open questions remain. Question 1: Should there be one source domain name per gTLD?
• Preliminary Agreement is that yes, there should be one source domain identified per gTLD.
• Slide 6: Example shows that the valid labels can differ between each gTLD, and a given variant.
• Persian, Arabic, Urdu use the same script, but languages might not use the same character set. Otherwise, no objections to the preliminary agreement.
• Slide 7: Question 2: Must the source domain name be register?
• Preliminary Agreement: The source domain name must be registered but may or may not be activated. No objection to the preliminary agreement.
• Slide 8: Michael B proposal - It should be possible to delete or change a source domain name as long as its active variant domain names remain allocatable.
• Slide 9: Question 3: Can a source domain name be changed or deleted?
• Preliminary Agreement: No need to prescribe policy recommendation in response to this question. 
• Certain attributes of a domain name cannot be edited. The string in particular cannot be edited. It must be deleted and re-registered. If the source is deleted, the rest of the variants should also conclude their lifecycle. Essentially, there should be no remnants from the variant set.
• Slide 10: Source Domain Name and Variant Domain Set are suggested items to be included in the Glossary. Definitions are suggested and were read out to the team during the meeting. 
• Suggestion to add: “should be at the second-level (or levels for which the registry provides registration for)”. Some concern that the recommendations have been limited to the second level.
• Suggestion that the recommendation should be limited to the second level since the contracts generally do not prescribe actions for the third level. Third level and beyond, if allowed, are generally up to the registrant to manage.
• Agreement with this comment and belief that this question is actually out of scope. IDN tables are actually not even required at the third level and beyond. 
• Confirmation that the text related to the registrant and sponsoring registrar jointly identify the primary source domain is also captured as a recommendation.
  • Suggestion to remove the last sentence since it’s also captured in the recommendation. Could also reference recommendation for clarity and consistency. 
• Concern/question: Are we creating rules beyond the extent of IDNs? There are generally not variants for non-IDNs.
• Suggestion that the recommendations and definitions must be consistent. Agreement that this is indeed important.

Action Item: Limited the text for the definition of Source Domain Name by linking to the recommendation, to avoid redundant or contradictory text.

• For the Variant Domain Set definition, it is currently limited to the primary gTLD. Would it be extended to variant gTLDs? It would seem that this definition should be consistent with the preliminary agreement [add reference to agreement]
• Might need another layer to connect variant domain sets across gTLD variants. This coherence is needed to help ensure the same entity principle is applied across the gTLD variants.
• The definition is not clear whether or not the disposition values are a part of the set.
• Clarified that the top-level definition does in fact include the disposition value, so there might be a benefit to be consistent.
• Question whether the disposition terminology is the same for top-level and second level. Confirmation that the terminology is consistent.
• Suggestion that the definition should include domain names across all of the variant gTLDs, which would aid in the issue of ensuring same entity across the variant gTLDs.

Action Item: Revise definition to ensure adherence of the same entity principle and make clear that the disposition value is a part of the definition.

Identifying the Same Registrant: C3, C3a 

• CPH TechOps was requested to provide a presentation on this topic.
• Slide 12: Preliminary Recommendation 2: The “same entity” principle applies to the activation of future variant domain names. This means that all allocatable variant domain names from a variant domain set must be activated or withheld for possible allocation only to the same registrant at the same sponsoring registrar.
• Slide 13: Context about charter questions C3 and C3a
• Slide 14: Domain Name Registration flow and parties involved.
• A person or entity wanting a certain domain name goes to a registrar, which communicates with the registry (via EPP). The EPP command is domain create, which includes the domain name and the required registrant information. This command is a billable transaction.
  • The result is either a confirmation or an error output. If successful, the entry gets added to the database and registration data server.
  • For variant activation (not necessarily registration, since it might not require an EPP command), it could be a create command (which would be billable) or an update command (which would not be billable).
• Need to consider resellers, who might not be able to easily determine or enforce same entity rules who are in some ways, like a registrant in terms of information known. Registrar sees the reseller contacts, not necessarily for the ultimate registrant.