The call for the IDNs EPDP team will take place on Friday, 25 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes.

For other places see:


  1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes)
  2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes)
  3. Continue discussion on Charter Questions A7, A9, D1b, and B4 (80 minutes)
  4. AOB (3 minutes)


EPDP Team Meeting #25 Slides - A7, A9, D1b.pdf


Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript 

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar



Apologies:  Anil Kumar Jain, Maxim Alzoba

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

Action Item: leadership and staff to suggest a stripped back version of the question(s) to ask the GP. Will provide to the EPDP to consider.

Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 27 February 2022

Roll Call & SOI Updates

  • None

Welcome & Chair Updates

  • Extended deadline for A5 and A6 until Wednesday, 2 March
  • Request to open up draft recommendations Google docs to allow comments. Committed to not redline to document.

Continue discussion on Charter Questions A7, A9, D1b, and B4


  • Recap on A7 deliberations to date. For part 1, suggestion that 3rd bullet is not needed for drafting recommendation.
  • For part 2, if the GP is asked to do work, they will need instructions to perform the work.
  • Staff suggestion for the GP to identify an exclusion list rather than an inclusive task, given the thousands of Han characters.
    • And further, perhaps the CJK GPs can develop a “hard no” list of disqualified Han characters (e.g., single or two stroke characters). And have that subject to EPDP Team’s review.
  • Clear instructions needed for GPs and IP for developing additional criteria to be used by DNS stability, string sim, and other areas TBD. Suggested criteria on slide.
  • Some concern that the criteria is being overcomplicated. Because of the punycode, it does not seem to be a technical and security reason. It just needs to be an ideograph/ideogram and otherwise meet normal requirements of program.
  • The reason for considering this criteria is because the group agreed that it did not have the expertise to determine allowable characters, or a mechanism to do so.
  • SAC052 recommends a very conservative approach for single character IDNs. It notes that a shorter string has a higher potential for confusability.
  • Suggestion that confusability should not matter against undelegated strings.
  • Suggestion that allowable single HAN characters should have a meaning, represent a word.
  • Agreement that technically, not a problem. However, notes the confusability issue is more pronounced the shorter the string. If a panel is to perform the evaluation in New gTLD Program, it could not be a GP, as it is not a standing panel. Suggestion that meaning might not be important, since that is not required for ASCII strings.
  • The idea is to give the GPs instructions to help provide input to the EPDP to consider.
  • Some support for GPs to consider the confusability question, not to only rely on the panel after submission.
  • Suggestion that the SSAC Advice will be taken into account via the evaluation processes.
  • The idea of doing up front analysis helps potential applicants to submit an acceptable character. To that end, SubPro welcomed the clarity of a prescriptive list to make the process more predictable via the Rationale.
  • Suggestion again that only bullets 1-3 are relevant, and no need to inquire with the GPs.
  • Question about whether there is an algorithmic way to add predictability. SubPro recommended against that (e.g., SWORD). Clarification that SubPro recommended against SWORD specifically.
  • GPs have been quite helpful in the past and timing will of course depend upon the task. What the EPDP could do is actually go to the GP with a very high level question to get an estimate of time and willingness to undertake work.
  • Suggestion to strip the question back to just hard no or disqualified characters. Some support to inquire with the GP, in part because they are linguists and have expertise that is not necessarily present in the EPDP.

Action Item: leadership and staff to suggest a stripped back version of the question(s) to ask the GP. Will provide to the EPDP to consider.


  • Noted that Delegated and Rejected overlap with Application statuses in the 2012 round.
  • Allocated seems to serve as a precursor to “In Contracting”
  • No equivalent to Blocked or Withhold-same-entity
  • Suggestion to accept the Staff Paper proposed label states for now. Rationale is that the label states are not dependent upon the application status and the EPDP team is not asked to expand application statuses.
    • Label states are used to track the status of variant labels.
    • That set of variant labels and their respective states will be leveraged in different processes and considered by this group later (e.g., string sim, objections, etc.)
  • Some support that they can live with it as a preliminary recommendation
  • Suggestion to ensure that definitions are not inconsistent with what the ODP is working on. And that the recommendation not be prescriptive about the specific words, but recommend that they be consistent with terminology in the new gTLD Program (and ccTLDs to the extent possible).


  • N/A


  • N/A


  • None

  • No labels