The call for the IDNs EPDP team will take place on Thursday, 04 November 2021 at 13:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see:


  1. Roll Call & SOI Updates 
  2. Continued Deliberations on Topic A: Consistent Definition and Technical Utilization of RZ-LGR – Continue with Question A3
  3. AOB: possible change of call duration to 90 minutes  


EPDP Team Meeting #13 Slides.pdf




Apologies:  Anil Kumar Jain, Tomslin Samme-Nlar, Farell Folly

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

Action Item: Staff will formulate a draft outcome for a3, taking into consideration EPDP Team discussion.

Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 4 November 2021

Roll Call & SOI Updates

  • SOI Update - Justine has completed her 2-year term as an ALAC Member and has taken up a new leadership appointment -- as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council. 
  • SOI Update - Jeff was appointed as the GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro ODP.
  • On behalf of Council, RySG considering next steps for letter from Board on IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0. Work may come to the EPDP, but unsure at this time.

Continue deliberations on Topic A: Consistent definition and technical utilization of RZ-LGR – continue with question a3

  • Staff reviewed the expanded process flow for application of the RZ-LGR in the New gTLD process
  • Assertion that the challenge mechanism is against the remit of the DNS Stability Panel – checking validity against the RZ-LGR.
  • In the challenge, after the re-check, initial assessment could be wrong and the string could be valid (application reinstated) or assessment could be confirmed (application still rejected).
  • The other outcome is an issue with the RZ-LGR itself, and the challenge would be to the Generation Panel/Integration Panel.
  • Some agreement that challenges against the RZ-LGR itself should be external to the program and any applicable applications should be removed from the program.
  • Question: Applicants can check their string now. Why would they nevertheless apply, if they know the string is invalid? Why is a panel needed to challenge outcomes?
  • Answer: Goes right to question in block 12. For this group to determine.
  • The process flow that EPDP leadership has created is based on assumptions, in particular taking into account implementation from 2012. We don’t know at this stage because the Board has not adopted SubPro Recs.
  • The expectation is that the DNS Stability panel will perform a manual review, even after an algorithmic review initially. This is a part of the panel’s other review responsibilities.
  • Question: For step 27, is it feasible to submit a change request to a GP that might not exist?
  • Answer: This seems to support the assumption that the change request for RZ-LGR belongs outside of the program.
  • Question: If we disallow steps 26 and 27 and the change request is ongoing, what should be done?
  • Answer: Perhaps there should be notification earlier in the process that a change request to the GP, outside of the New G Program, might make sense (e.g., step 12).
  • Question 1:
    • Some think no, as why would a manual check make a difference?
    • If invalid according to the implementation of the algorithm, then it should be allowed (but it should be valid according to the RZ-LGR). The question needs to be refined.
    • Some agree that challenging the implementation of the algorithm makes sense, since mistakes can be made.
    • After discussion, all agree. Box 12 is captured accurately.
  • Question 2:
    • Envisioned that the DNS Stability Panel would perform a check to ensure that the algorithm was applied correctly to the applicant’s string.
    • One thought that manual review for all strings is overkill.
    • The DNS Stability Panel performing this check would be consistent with 2012. Agreement to the question, though with some hesitation about it being unnecessary.
  • Question 3:
    • Clarifying the question – is the question more about, is there any reason why the change request process for the RZ-LGR should be a part of the New gTLD Program?
    • Reiterating Jeff’s point, if the change request process is invoked, the relevant string should not hold up any other applications.
  • Question 4:
    • “Amend” could mean simple syntax changes versus material changes to the string.
    • As strings can be checked beforehand, it seems that changes should not be allowed?

Action Item: Staff will formulate a draft outcome for a3, taking into consideration EPDP Team discussion.


  • We may need to revisit the scheduling of the meeting because of time changes
  • Will likely need to extend to 90 minutes, hopefully EPDP Team members will be amenable to the change.

  • No labels