Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Lianna Galstyan (ALAC), Farell Folly (GNSO Council Liaison), Satish Babu (ALAC), Jerry Sen (RySG), Nigel Hickson (GAC) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat) GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Notes and Action Items IDNs EPDP Meeting #51 8 September 2022
Action Items: Action Item 1: Recommendation 3.4: Add “or Change of Control” after “Registry Transition Process” in the first sentence: “After the Registry Transition Process is completed . . ” Action Item 2: Response to Charter Question D3: Change “policies” to “requirements”, consistent with Specification 2 of the RA. Action Item 3: Response to Charter Question D3: Possible revision to bullet 1: “Existing data escrow requirements for existing gTLDs must apply to IDN gTLDs and variant labels as provided for in their RAs.” Action Item 4: Response to Charter Question D3: In bullet 2, change “provider” to “agent.” Action Item 5: Response to CQ D3: Leadership to propose language for bullet 3. This will also influence Implementation Guidance 3.9. Action Item 6:Replace “policies” with “requirements” in recommendations 3.8 and 3.9. Action Item 7:Rationale for recommendations 3.8 and 3.9:Change “enhance” to “maintain.” Action Item 8:Rationale for recommendations 3.8 and 3.9: Revise language to be consistent with updated text in bullet 3 of the Answer to Charter Question D3. Action Item 9: Rationale for Recommendation 3.2-3.3:Keep text highlighted by Dennis marked to revisit and review after the EPDP Team has resolved the string similarity issue.
Welcome, Chair Updates & ICANN75 Planning
Second reading of group 3 charter questions
Action Item 1: Recommendation 3.4: Add “or Change of Control” after “Registry Transition Process” in the first sentence: “After the Registry Transition Process is completed . . ”
Action Item 2: Response to Charter Question D3: Change “policies” to “requirements”, consistent with Specification 2 of the RA. Action Item 3: Response to Charter Question D3: Possible revision to bullet 1: “Existing data escrow requirements for existing gTLDs must apply to IDN gTLDs and variant labels as provided for in their RAs.”
Action Item 4: Response to Charter Question D3: In bullet 2, change “provider” to “agent.”
Action Item 5: Response to CQ D3: Leadership to propose language for bullet 3. This will also influence Implementation Guidance 3.9.
Action Item 6:Replace “policies” with “requirements” in recommendations 3.8 and 3.9.
Action Item 7:Rationale for recommendations 3.8 and 3.9:Change “enhance” to “maintain.”
Action Item 8:Rationale for recommendations 3.8 and 3.9: Revise language to be consistent with updated text in bullet 3 of the Answer to Charter Question D3.
Action Item 9: Rationale for Recommendation 3.2-3.3:Keep text highlighted by Dennis marked to revisit and review after the EPDP Team has resolved the string similarity issue.
Continue discussion of objections (Limited Public Interest, Community, and Legal Rights)
AOB
|