The IDN Scoping Team teleconference will take place on Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/y6r725bb
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Welcome and roll call
- Continued: identifying problems/issues with IDN variant TLD recommendations.
- What other policies/processes may be impacted (especially from the same-entity requirements)?
- GNSO Council for the 24 October GNSO Council Meeting – Confirmation on slides
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Notes/ Action Items
Action Item
- Edmon to reach out to Co-Chairs of SubPro PDP and ask whether they are willing to take on the IDN policy related work.
- Edmon to propose draft language for recommending an EPDP as the potential mechanism to carry out the IDN policy work and publish the proposed language on the scoping team mailing list for feedback.
- Staff to identify the part of the staff papers for IDN variant TLD management that can fit in an Issue Report.
- Staff to organize scoping team meetings after ICANN66.
NOTES
- Are we comfortable to launch an EPDP? Or need to launch a regular PDP with the Issue Report? Consider whether a separate Issue Report needs to be prepared.
- Maxim suggested that interested GNSO members with trademark expertise should join the scoping team too.
- One option would be to ask SubPro PDP WG to take on IDN policy work, but treat it as a separate track so this doesn't cause delays in SubPro. SubPro is about future TLDs, so not an ideal place to look at IDN related work? SubPro has three work items related to current TLDs: (1) closed generics (2) collision readiness (3) collisions in 2LDs.
- Two distinct areas the scoping team is discussing: 1) IDN implementation guidelines (second-level registrations) – not really consensus policy at this point, 2) top level variants – there are consensus policy being put forward, in addition to the original 2012 recommendations. For handling policy related to top level domains, a PDP is needed.
- If punt the IDN policy work to SubPro, would only delay SubPro’s report on current TLDs, not future TLDs. Split SubPro final report into two to prevent delay of the report on future TLDs.
- Staff went through the problem Definition Outline section in the options paper.
- For IDN guidelines, form a group of impacted parties to review the actual implementation of the guidelines. Certain elements of IDN guidelines should become policy, but they will be wrapped into the IDN variant TLD recommendations.
- Policy development is required, even just to codify the recommendations in the staff papers. Nevertheless, future policy work is not beholden by those staff recommendations.
- Ask the Co-Chairs of SubPro whether they want to take on this body of work? The IDN topic has a potentially wider scope (e.g., including impact to string requirements, EBERO, Registry Agreement, etc.) than what SubPro might be able to consider.
- What does the Issue Report cover? Issue report is to understand and scope the problem at the very high level, and confirm it is within the scope for the GNSO to consider. Provide background, analysis, and data regarding the problem. This part is not so different from the staff paper already produced for the IDN variant TLD management.
- https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/pdp-guide-v1 The issue report should: describe an issue but NOT explore options; provide directly relevant background and links; recommend whether to proceed or not; propose terms of reference for a Council WG; be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by-laws.
- What is precisely is in the staff papers for the IDN variant TLD management? When those papers were developed, ICANN Org went step by step through the processes of applicant guidebook and ccTLD fast track process, and tried to identify all the relevant issues.
- The objective of the policy work is to develop a solution to delegate the IDN variant TLDs. Each recommendation in the staff papers has called out a series of questions, which are candidates for the “charter questions” of the future (E)PDP.
- Check page 8 of the recommendations/analysis section of the staff papers. Do they qualify as the appropriate content of an Issue Report?
- No need to follow the exact template of the Issue Report when confirming the content in the staff papers.
- If we recommend an EPDP, need to include some qualification so people don’t immediately jump into the wrong conclusion about the time constraints, etc.
- Plan to make the call to solicit additional members for the scoping team during the Council meeting, but no formal process is needed.
- ACTION ITEM: Edmon to reach out to Co-Chairs of SubPro PDP and ask whether they are willing to take on the IDN policy related work.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify the part of the staff papers for IDN variant TLD management that can fit in an Issue Report.
- ACTION ITEM: Edmon to propose draft language for recommending an EPDP as the potential mechanism to carry out the IDN policy work and publish the proposed language on the scoping team mailing list for feedback.
- ACTION ITEM: Staff to organize scoping team meetings after ICANN66.
