The call for the Joint IDNs EPDP team with ccPDP4 will take place on Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

For other places see: 


1. Welcome
2. Introduction: ccNSO PDP4
3. Introduction: GNSO IDN-EPDP
4. Item comparison
5. Next steps per group
6. AOB
7. Closure



Notes/ Action Items

Action Items


Action Item: Edmon and Sarmad will seek further input from the Board UA/IDN WG: To what extent are the divergences between the gNSO and ccNSO draft recommendations a concern? If there is a divergence, but not a conflict, is this an issue? Is the expectation that the groups resolve differences or just highlight them?


High-Level Notes

  • Slide 3 – Overview: Goal and focus of this session.
    • Discuss draft recommendations developed by both groups to understand the similarities and differences.
  • Slide 4 – General Comparison of the ccPDP4 and IDN EPDP, including topics in scope, procedure, scope of policy, and implementation.
    • Overview: There are differences between the way that the two WGs and the Supporting Organizations do their business, but there are overlaps in the subject matter being addressed through the respective E/PDPs.
    • Question for further discussion: How did the ccPDP4 conduct its stress testing?
    • Response: Scenarios are developed and consideration is given about the ability to handle that scenario. There may be similarities with what the ODP is doing in the GNSO.
    • Response: ccNSO started doing stress testing with the retirement policy. The policy itself is 4-5 pages long. It’s helpful to understand how various outliers play out under the policy. The working group develops scenarios. The WG discusses how the scenarios would play out under the proposed policy. Could the WG live the with outcome or does there need to be an adjustment to the policy before the recommendations go out for consensus call? The stress test is included in the WG outputs. The stress test allows you to respond to any questions that later come up in public comment or through other channels.
  • Slide 5 – RZ-LGR Utilization: Consistent recommendations between the two groups.
    • Overview: The level of detail may be different between the recommendations from the two groups, but the general principle remains consistent.
  • Slide 6 – RZ-LGR Utilization: Potential Difference
    • Overview: Two areas where there may be divergence are on limiting the number of delegated variants and on “grandfathering” existing TLDs after an RZ-LGR update with which the TLD is not validated.
    • Question: What does “meaningful representation” mean and how does it play into the ccPDP work?
    • Response: This is a basic policy requirement for eligibility for ccTLD strings. The concept was shared with the cc community for validation. In the GNSO case, there may be different considerations, for example brand representation, but for the cc community, the focus is specific.
    • Response: The requirement for a meaningful representation of the territory is analogous to gTLD requirements for special purpose TLDs e.g., brand TLDs or geo TLDs.
    • Response: Only one string is delegated per language and must be supported by people who represent the territory and the language. The string should be from a recognized script, usually defined by the government.
    • Response: The WG did a case study on what it would mean to have Pakistan with Arabic script and various variants. This was based on the staff study. There are about 1200 variants, including blocked variants. Only 6 or 7 are allocatable, most of which are not a meaningful representation. This tightly defined concept helps to limit the number of variants that will be in use.
    • Question: To what extent are the recommendations on the limits at odds? It is not clear that they necessarily are. Is this something the Board would consider a divergence of concern? Is the expectation that we resolve difference or just highlight them?
    • Response: The Board has not taken up discussion on this since Edmon joined the Board. The idea is that the policies from the ccNSO and GNSO do not contradict one another. There is likely understanding that they will not be identical. If contradictory, there might be an impact on the consistent user experience. Some level of consistency is desired.
    • Response: In the case that the ccNSO and GNSO might not have identical recommendations, but we don’t want to be in a situation where they are contradictory.


Action Item: Edmon and Sarmad will seek further input from the Board UA/IDN WG: To what extent are the divergences between the gNSO and ccNSO draft recommendations a concern? If there is a divergence, but not a conflict, is this an issue? Is the expectation that the groups resolve differences or just highlight them?


  • Slide 7 – RZ-LGR Utilization: Additional Recommendations
    • Overview: Recommendations that cover additional topics that do not overlap between the two groups.
  • Slide 8 – Same Entity at Top-Level: Consistent Recommendations
    • Overview: Consistency in recommendations on allocation of variant TLD to same entity and registry operators and back-end registry service providers for variant TLDs.
  • Slide 9 – Same Entity at Top-Level: Additional Recommendations
    • Overview: Recommendations that cover additional topics.
    • Both groups have sub-groups working on issues related to confusing similarity. On the issue of whether the two sub-groups should coordinate, it was noted that the IDN EPDP small group will need to bring its outputs to the full EPDP for its consideration before outputs are considered stable.
    • Question: EPDP is considering best practice guidelines on the management on variants at the top level. There have been IDN ccTLDs and variants in operation for some time. Is this left to the individual ccTLD or are there some consistent practice that can be shared on this issue?
    • Response: There are IDN ccTLDs in traditional and simplified Chinese. They have been allocated to the same IDN ccTLD manager. IDN ccTLD managers participate in the WG, and the WG asks them questions. Records of the deliberations reflect this input. The Fast Track experience has evolved over time and this evolution takes into account the experience of those who have gone through the process.
  • Slide 10 – Same Entity at Second-Level
    • Sub-Group of ccPDP4 is considering this topic. ccPDP4 will discuss whether allocation of variant SLD to same entity and registration of variant SLD under variant TLD to same entity is within or outside scope. These may not be policy recommendations, but technical considerations or advice.
    • IDN EPDP has had initial discussions and realized that defining the same entity as the registrant is difficult to implement in practice. The EPDP Team is exploring separating out the second level discussion from the top level to provide time for additional data collection and for the contracted parties to explore this topic further and provide input to the EPDP Team.
  • Slide 11 – IDN-EPDP Upcoming Work
    • Timeline is somewhat in flux, because the EPDP is considering restructuring its work. Regular communication will be maintained between the support staff for the GNSO and ccNSO. If the timeline is adjusted for the IDN EPDP, when the EPDP Team notifies the GNSO Council, it will also provide this information to the ccPDP4.
  • Upcoming work for ccPDP4: The Variant Management Sub-Group and Confusing Similarity Sub-Group are wrapping up their work. Stress Test will be conducted, followed by a public comment period, before submitting recommendations. The final recommendations will likely be submitted in the next 4-6 months.
  • Suggestions for further coordination:
    • Additional coordination on the topic of confusing similarity once the respective groups have reviewed sub-team/small group outputs.
    • Additional opportunity to work together on stress testing.
  • No labels