On 20 Jul 2023, GNSO Council received a revised project plan from the IDNs EPDP Working Group which shaves 13 months off the earlier timeline. The key milestones for this EPDP are now as follows:

Phase 1 Final Report remains expected to be delivered to Council in Nov 2023
Council then considers this Phase 1 Final Report and decides on the adoption of report and recommendations
Phase 2 Initial Report is expected to be published for public comment in Apr 2024 (vs May 2025 earlier)
Phase 2 Final Report is expected to be delivered to Council in Oct 2024 (vs Nov 2025 earlier)

Policy Track Issues & Charter Questions (CQ)

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)	Phase 1 Initial Report Phase 1 Final Report
B. IDN Variant TLD Management: "Same entity" at the top-level	b1: Same entity top level b2: Same entity

...

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

=> Phase 1 Initial Report

a1: PR 1.1: RZ-LGR as sole source to calculate variant labels, disposition values
a2: No recommendation needed
a3:
- PR 3.22:
  - String must conform to mandatory string requirements and RZ-LGR to be submitted in application system
  - If initial algorithmic check says string is “invalid” or “blocked” application can be accepted but applicant must be warned of potential disqualification
  - If DSP confirms “invalid” or “blocked”, application is disqualified but applicant can invoke limited challenge mechanism
  - Grounds of challenge limited to “incorrect assessment of technical implementation of RZ-LGR”
- IG 3.23: Application system should issue disqualification warning if initial algorithmic check says string is “invalid” or “blocked”
- PR 3.24: Disqualification remains unless and until string deemed valid and allocatable in future RZ-LGR
a4: No recommendation needed
a5:
a6:
a7: PR 3.17:Only languages where character is an ideograph are eligible to have single-character gTLD i.e. only Han script for now, but not until relevant guidelines from CJK GPs are developed, implemented
a8:
a9:
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: PR 2.1: Allocatable variant label for existing IDN gTLD from 2012 round only allocatable or withheld for that registry operator
b2:
b3: No recommendation needed
b4: PR 3.1: Allocatable variant label cannot precede primary
b4: PR 3.2: Future registry operator can only apply for allocatable variant label during application round
b5:

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

d1a + d1b part 1 on 23 Mar 2022 - straw poll conducted
d1b part 2 on 2 Nov 2022 - straw poll conducted
d2, d3 are pending

d1: No recommendation needed

d1a:

d1b:

PR 3.3: Existing IDN gTLDs registry operators can only apply allocatable variant labels during application round

PR 3.4: Future IDN gTLD primary and allocatable variants labels in one application

PR 3.5: Both future IDN gTLD and existing registry operators who want allocatable variant labels must explain why they seek those variant label

IG 3.6: Criteria for evaluating explanations (per PR 3.5) should be pre-identified and applied consistently by qualified

PR 3.7: Both future IDN gTLD and existing registry operators who want allocatable variant labels must demonstrate ability to manage primary and variant labels from technical and operational perspective

IG 3.8: Evaluation (per PR 3.7) should be closely tied to overall technical capability evaluation with criteria including Critical Functions with respect to SL registrations

IG 3.9: ICANN org may do research to help identify additional standards or test for technical and operational capability evaluation (per PR 3.7)

PR 3.10: Fee structure for all future applications must be consistent with principle of cost recovery

PR 3.11: Future applicant for primary and up to 4 allocatable variant labels must incur base application fee

PR 3.12: Any applicant applying for more than 4 allocatable variant labels may incur additional fees determined by ICANN org

PR 3.13: Future registry operator applying only for allocatable variant labels must incur discounted base application fee

PR 3.14:

Existing registry operator applying for up to 4 allocatable variant labels of existing IDN gTLD in the immediate next round will have base application fee waived.

If beyond immediate next round then must incur discounted base application fee.

If apply for more than 4 existing IDN gTLD in the immediate next round then may incur additional fees.

If beyond immediate next round then must incur discounted base application fee and may incur additional fees.

PR 3.15: One-time exception in the immediate next application round, existing IDN gTLDs applications for allocatable variant labels to receive priority in processing order

d2:

d3:

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 - Reserved Names:
- PR 3.18: Reserved Names list to not be expanded to include variant labels
- PR 3.19: Variant labels of Reserved Names not allowed
e5 - Strings ineligible for delegation:
- PR 3.20: List of Strings Ineligible for Delegation to not be expanded to include variant labels
- PR 3.21: Only the protected orgs on list of Strings Ineligible for Delegation can apply variant labels of their protected strings; but only if they also apply for or have the primary
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)

2021 Deliberations

This EPDP Team has its first meeting on 11 Aug 2021 and have been meeting nearly every week, on Thursdays at 13:30 UTC.
The ALAC Team provided regular verbal updates to CPWG especially whenever there were some developments in the deliberations of this EPDP.
In particular, the ALAC Team, presented:

1. An update to CPWG on 1 Sep 2011 on the EPDP's third meeting of 25 Aug 2021, as an example
2. Some background to CPWG on 24 Nov 2021 and on EPDP Team deliberations for CQ a1-a3 as at 18 Nov 2021 (presentation)
3. A follow-up to CPWG on 1 Dec 2021 on recap to CQ a1-a3 (presentation)
4. An opportunity for discussion of questions at CPWG on 8 Dec 2021 out of the ALAC Team's presentations of 24 Nov 2021 and 1 Dec 2021

2022 Deliberations

The EPDP Team resumed meetings on 6 Jan 2022.
# At its 3 Feb 2022 call, it was determined that the EPDP Team would move forward with an updated sequence of charter questions.
The ALAC Team continued to provide regular verbal updates to CPWG especially whenever there were some developments in the deliberations of this EPDP.
In particular, the ALAC Team, presented:

...

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ1+2.pdf
height	150

Image Removed

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ3+4.pdf
height	150

Image Removed

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ5.pdf
height	150

Image Removed

The ALAC team resumed sharing updates on the EPDP Team's work:

9. With CPWG on 18 May 2022, in particular, the EPDP Team draft outcomes for CQs a9 and a10 (presentation)

Post-ICANN74, the ALAC team presented:

10. An update to CPWG on 6 Jul 2022 on the overall progress of EPDP Team's work and revisited the draft recommendation text for CQs a7 part 1 and a10 (post 2nd reading) (presentation)

11. An update to CPWG on 20 Jul 2022 regarding a 'Virtual Office Hour' chat between some members of the ALAC Team and the EPDP Leadership/Staff Team regarding the workings and progress of the EPDP (no presentation).

Post-ICANN75, the ALAC team presented:

...

Image Removed

...

Phase 1 Initial Report Phase 1 Final Report
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: Phase 2 c2: Phase 2 c3: Phase 2 c3a: Phase 2 c4: Phase 2 c4a: Phase 2 c5: Phase 2 c6: Phase 2
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-d3 Phase 1 Initial Report Phase 1 Final Report	d4: Phase 2 d5: Phase 2 d6: Phase 2 d7: Phase 2 d7a: Phase 2
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)	Phase 1 Initial Report Phase 1 Final Report
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: Phase 2 f2: Phase 2
G. Process to update the IDN Implementation Guidelines	g1: Process to update IDN Guidelines g1a: Differentiation for ccTLDs and gTLDs?		g1: Phase 2 g2: Phase 2

2021 Deliberations

This EPDP Team has its first meeting on 11 Aug 2021 and have been meeting nearly every week, on Thursdays at 13:30 UTC.
The ALAC Team provided regular verbal updates to CPWG especially whenever there were some developments in the deliberations of this EPDP.
In particular, the ALAC Team, presented:

2022 Deliberations

The EPDP Team resumed meetings on 6 Jan 2022.
# At its 3 Feb 2022 call, it was determined that the EPDP Team would move forward with an updated sequence of charter questions.
The ALAC Team continued to provide regular verbal updates to CPWG especially whenever there were some developments in the deliberations of this EPDP.
In particular, the ALAC Team, presented:

5. And discussed with CPWG on 2 Feb 2022 positions and rationales for CQ a4 - a7 (presentation)
6. Some background to CPWG on 2 Mar 2022 and on EPDP Team deliberations for CQ a5 and a6 (presentation)
7. Some background to CPWG on 16 Mar 2022 and on EPDP Team deliberations for CQ b1 - b4, d1b (presentation)

Anchor

	d1bStrawPoll
	d1bStrawPoll

8. And discussed with CPWG on 23 Mar 2022 to seek indicative positions for CQ d1b (presentation) by way of 5 straw poll questions:

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ1+2.pdf
height	150

Image Added

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ3+4.pdf
height	150

Image Added

View file

name	20220322v1 IDNs-EPDP ppt for CPWG 23Mar2022-StrawPollQ5.pdf
height	150

Image Added

The ALAC team resumed sharing updates on the EPDP Team's work:

9. With CPWG on 18 May 2022, in particular, the EPDP Team draft outcomes for CQs a9 and a10 (presentation)

Post-ICANN74, the ALAC team presented:

10. An update to CPWG on 6 Jul 2022 on the overall progress of EPDP Team's work and revisited the draft recommendation text for CQs a7 part 1 and a10 (post 2nd reading) (presentation)
11. An update to CPWG on 20 Jul 2022 regarding a 'Virtual Office Hour' chat between some members of the ALAC Team and the EPDP Leadership/Staff Team regarding the workings and progress of the EPDP (no presentation).

Post-ICANN75, the ALAC team presented:
12. And discussed with CPWG on 12 Oct 2022 the role of variants in string similarity review which impinges on many charter questions (eg. b4a, e1, e3, e3a, e4) (presentation);
Anchor
HybridModel1
HybridModel1
introducing and ascertaining support for the proposed Hybrid Model.

Image Added

13. To CPWG on 2 Nov 2022 on the contemplated Project Change Request (PCR) which would affect the timeline and issuance of the EPDP's Initial and Final Reports, and how those reports would be split into 2 phases. The team also discussed CQ B4 and CQ D1(b) which deals with establishing the processes by which (i) new applications could apply for a new IDN gTLD and allocatable variants, and (ii) existing ROs could apply for allocatable variants of their existing IDN gTLDs (presentation).

Anchor

	AppProcesses
	AppProcesses

The team conducted several polls in relation to these to CQs, the results of which are:

Image AddedImage Added

2023 Deliberations

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

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 (Phase 1 Initial Report):

15. On 3 May 2023 - overview, structure, underlying principles, sec 4.1, sec 4.2 and sec 4.3 (presentation)
16. On 10 May 2023 - role of variants in Limited Public Interest Objection and Community Objection, possible outcomes (presentation)
17. On 17 May 2023 - modifications to String Similarity Review (Hybrid Model) & exceptions, outcomes for contention resolution (presentation)
18. On 24 May 2023 - call for inputs to PR 3.6 & IG 3.6 on factors related to absence of ceiling value for variants (presentation)
19. On 31 May 2023, the ALAC Team discussed the draft ALAC Statement to the Initial Report

.Quebec and Latin Script RZ-LGR discussion on variant labels

Post ICANN77, the ALAC Team presented:
20. On 12 Jul 2023 - an update, alluding to the ALAC letter to the GNSO Council Chair (22 June 2023)
21. On 6 Sep 2023 - an update, alluding to the Discussion Paper about “.québec” Challenges to GNSO Council (24 August 2023)

Phase 1 Draft Final Report

...

Image RemovedImage Removed

2023 Deliberations

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

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. (presentation)

16. On 10 May 2023 -

17. On 17 May 2023 -

18. On 24 May 2023 -

On 31 May 2023, the ALAC Team discussed the draft ALAC Statement to the Initial ReportThe ALAC Team presented:
22. On 6 Sep 2023 - reconsideration of the Conservatism principle and impact to Recs 8,1, 3.5, 3.7 and IGs 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9.

...

Anchor

	Meeting-3
	Meeting-3

Update for 01 September CPWG:

...

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 60

New Version Current

Key

REPORTS/UPDATES TO & CONSULTATIONS WITH THE AT-LARGE CONSOLIDATED POLICY WORKING GROUP (CPWG)

Policy Track Issues & Charter Questions (CQ)

2021 Deliberations

2022 Deliberations

2021 Deliberations

2022 Deliberations

2023 Deliberations

Phase 1 Initial Report

.Quebec and Latin Script RZ-LGR discussion on variant labels

Phase 1 Draft Final Report

2023 Deliberations

Phase 1 Initial Report