AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Versions Compared

Old Version 45

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

compared with

New Version 46

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Not to revisit Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) recommendations in context of future new gTLDs, but to consider whether such recommendations should be extended to existing gTLDs (where IDNs are concerned);
  • To consider the impact of recommendations out of the IDN Variant TLD Implementation Staff Paper ("Staff Paper") and Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules ("TSG recommendations") on both future and existing gTLDs where there is a lack of SubPro recommendation; and
  • To coordinate with the SubPro Implementation Review Team (SubPro IRT) on addressing implementation issues to achieve, to the extent possible, consistent solutions for new and existing gTLDs – to note that the SubPro IRT has not yet been convened at this point.

Remark on Project Plan of the EPDP

TBA


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)
  • 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 pending 
  • a1: Rec 1.1 Stable (Group 1 CQ)
  • a2: No recommendation needed (Group 1 CQ)
  • a3 Rec 1.2 & IG 1.3 Stable (Group 1 CQ), check for an Open Item 
  • a4: No recommendation needed (Group 1 CQ)
  • a5: Rec 1.4, Rec 1.5 & IG 1.6 Stable after 2nd reading  (Group 1 CQ) 
  • a6: Rec 1.7, Rec 1.8, Rec 1.9 & IG 1.10 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ)
  • a7 part 1: Rec 1.11 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ)
  • a7 part 2: Draft rec pending, post input from CJK GPs (Group 1 CQ)
  • a8: Parked since is catch-all question
  • a9: Rec 1.12 Stable (Group 1 CQ)
  • a10: Rec 1.13 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 1 CQ)

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
  • Recap of b4, b5 are pending
  • b1: Rec 2.1 Stable (Group 2 CQ)
  • b2: Rec 2.2 & Rec 2.3 Stable after 2nd reading (Group 2 CQ)
  • b3: No recommendation needed (Group 2 CQ)
  • b4: Parked pending strawman proposal
  • b4a: Parked, pending e1 deliberation
  • b5: Rec 2.8 Stable (Group 2 CQ)

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
  • d1: No recommendation needed (Group 2 CQ)
  • d1a: Rec 2.4 Stable (Group 2 CQ)
  • d1b part 1: Parked pending outreach to Arabic/Chinese TLD ROs & strawman proposal 
  • d1b part 2: Rec 2.5 , & Rec 2.6 & 7 stable after 3rd reading; Rec 2.7 6 pending post 3rd reading review (Group 2 CQ)
  • d2: Rec 3.4, Rec 3.5, Rec 3.6 & Rec 3.7 pending 2nd reading (Group 3 CQ)
  • d3: Rec 3.8 & IG 3.9 pending 2nd reading (Group 3 CQ)
  • 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
  • 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 part 1: Rec 3.2 Stable (Group 3 CQ)
  • e5 part 2: Rec 3.3 in deliberation (Group 3 CQ)
  • e6: Deferred (Group 5 CQ)
  • 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)

...

  • Post-ICANN75, the ALAC team presented:

12.  To and 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); introducing and ascertaining support for the proposed Hybrid Model.

...

Anchor
Meeting-3
Meeting-3
Update for 01 September CPWG:

...