The call for the IDNs EPDP team will take place on Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes.

For other places see:


  1. Roll Call & SOI (2 minutes) 
  2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 mins) 
  3. Continue discussion of charter question e5 (Part 2) - Strings Ineligible for Delegation (50 minutes) 
  4. Begin discussion of charter question e7 (Part 1) - Strawman Process (30 mins) 
  5. AOB (3 mins)


EPDP Team Meeting #37 Slides - E5, E7.pdf



Apologies:  Emily Barabas (staff), Michael Bauland, Maxim Alzoba 


Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript 

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 26 May 2022


Roll Call & SOI

  • None

Welcome & Chair Updates

  • Working on agenda for ICAN74 - 2 sessions. Unfortunately, neither Donna nor Justine will be on the ground, so a good test for the hybrid format.
  • Appreciate if members let us know if there are clashes with either of the two sessions.

Continue discussion of charter questions e5 (Part 2) - Strings Ineligible for Delegation

  • Parked this question to allow for the staff team to perform some fact-finding.
  • Two part question, reserved strings and Ineligible for Delegation. Conclusion for part 1 is that variants of Reserved Names are blocked (but not added to the list).
  • Slide 5 - Review outcome of IGO PDP and implementation by ICANN org
  • Noted that not all recommendations are deployed. For instance, the temporary protections for second-level acronyms are still in place.
  • Slide 6 - Key points so far, reviewing reasons to extend protections and reasons to not do so.
  • Slide 7 - Possible approach: similar to Reserved Names approach where exact match allocatable variants are blocked from application, but not added to the list. Variants only available to relevant entity and must include the primary string. Lastly, make clear that preventing variants are NOT an expansion of rights.
  • What is atomicity? It’s the idea that the primary string and all variants (allocatable and blocked) are an atomic set and should not be broken apart. For instance, the primary name and variants should not go to different entities. The primary string and variants should be considered as the “same”.
  • IGO, Red Cross names are not reserved for any entity. 
    • Note - there is actually an exception procedure for the future.
  • One opinion is that no, no need to escalate to Council nor GAC. Need to be careful as certain recommendations are still not implemented (especially at the top-level). Also believes that any variants should be subject to the change process, once developed.
  • To clarify, the suggestion was to rely on the change procedure to add variants to the protected list, but not require that change procedure to acquire primary and allocatable variants.
  • Noted that someone could apply for a string that is confusingly similar (not a match) to a variant, which may block a relevant entity.
  • Suggests that ineligible for delegation does not mean that they are being reserved for an entity. They are being blocked. Compares it against three letter country codes.
    • Notes again the exception procedure, so it seems different.
  • Discussion about variants for acronyms. There is confusion between the acronyms and the full names of the IGOs/INGOs. Acronyms are subject to temporary protection, which is dependent on the outcome of the IGO PDP and Curative Rights PDP. Only the full names are on the list of strings ineligible for delegation. 
  • The variants of Ineligible for Delegation would be extremely lengthy.
  • Returned to discussion points on slide 7, which seek to thread the needle.

Begin discussion of charter question e7 - Strawman Process

  • Introduction of the question background. It is intended as a catch-all question regarding the implication of the new gTLD application round, but it is also related to the discussion of whether existing eligible gTLD registry operators should have a stand alone round to apply for variant labels. 
  • Explanation of the purpose and assumptions of the flow chart, as well as the definition of “specific” and “applicable”.  
  • Staff explained the flow chart, and provided examples regarding the impact of variants on the different steps of new gTLD application process. 
  • Objections should be filed before ICANN finishes the initial evaluation. The timing should be consistent with the actual implementation. 
  • The flow chart is a reproduction of the process flow in the 2012 AGB. Some of the elements were not included for the simplicity of the document. We should include those elements (e.g., application comments, GAC early warning/advice, submission of objection), not to miss some important elements in the actual process flow/timeline. 
  • The flow chart makes an assumption that all “new” processes recommended by SubPro are to be included. 
  • Some suggestions include the new processes recommended by SubPro in this flowchart, but at a minimum, flag them. For example, registry back-end pre-evaluation, challenges, appeals, etc. 
  • Question whether to get into the specifics of the elements, e.g., technical/operational capability, financial capability. 
  • When layer these elements with EPDP’s preliminary recommendation, we may be able to detect gaps and develop additional recommendations / implementation guidance, if appropriate. The next step is to include relevant preliminary recommendations in the flow chart. 
  • Suggestion to number the boxes in the flowchart for easier reference, and map the charter question to the boxes. 
  • Add grace period, redemption grace period - examples of additional Consensus Policies that may be impacted by variants. In this case, at the second-level. Question d4 does cover the second-level life cycle and it seems these elements would come up during that question.

Action Item: Update process flow chart to include additional elements like 1) the new processes envisioned by SubPro 2) additional inputs to the New gTLD Program process (e.g., application comment, GAC EW, etc.) 3. numbering for boxes 4. upcoming charter questions to be discussed and 5. references to preliminary recommendations.


  • None

  • No labels