The call for the IDNs EPDP team will take place on Thursday, 09 November 2023 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours.

For other places see:


  1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2min)       
  2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5min)
  3. Review of Phase 2 Text (Starting at Prelim Rec 6). (110min)
  4. AOB (3min)



Apologies: Nigel Hickson



Audio Recording

Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items


  • The RySG and RrSG will bring the language in “Transfer” back to the groups for their review regarding “simultaneously” 
  • Leadership will review the Prelim. Rec. 6 Rationale and report back with potentially updated language for bullets such as “Pending Deletion”
  • Leadership will review the document for use of “ownership” to ensure correct and consistent usage as compared with the word “sponsorship”


  • Roll Call and SOI Updates
    • Justine Chew and Hadia Elminiawi updated their statements of interest
  • Welcome and Chair Updates
    • The chair informed the team that the GNSO Council Liaison to the team, Farrell Folly, has departed the GNSO Council and Manju Chen has replaced them in this role. Farrell will stay with the team as a member of the NCSG.
    • Congratulations were in order for the team reaching consensus designation for the final phase 1 report recommendations and for the transmission of the phase 1 report to the GNSO council on 8 November.
    • The chair also informed the team that there will be a call on 16 November, but then no meetings until the face to face in Kuala Lumpur.
      • A member of the team asked if there will be remote participation available for the face to face, which was answered in the affirmative.
  • Review of Phase 2 Text (Starting at Prelim Rec. 6) 
    • ICANN Policy Development Support Staff started to review preliminary recommendations, starting with No. 6. 
      • One participant mentioned that they were confused about the domain lifecycle. They had thought that the lifecycle only applies to registered domains as until a domain is registered it is not live.
        • Staff replied that this explicitly refers to activated instead of allocatable domains and asked if that is acceptable?
          • As long as activated and registered have similar definitions, then this should be fine. “if we use activated = registered , why no[t]”
            • Staff described the decision to use activated in this context which did not generate any push back.
    • There was a discussion of some redline text in Preliminary Rec. 6. In the bullet point for “Transfer”, the use of the word “simultaneously” was challenged, including background from how a certain registrar processes activities. 
      • The team supported removing “simultaneously” as it was interpreted as being made to happen at the exact same time
      • There is a possibility that this is not interpreted like that and instead meant as a synonym to consecutively or just expeditiously. It was suggested that the contracted parties should go back to their groups and check if the language is acceptable
        • ACTION ITEM: The RySG and RrSG will bring the language in “Transfer” back to the groups for their review regarding “simultaneously” 
      • Would it be possible to say something like “almost simultaneously”?
        The understanding is that it cannot happen exactly at the same time but need a word for it.
      • One team member reported that it will be important to ensure that all other activities / changes to the set do not happen during the time of transfer. 
        • No disagreement here from members of the team, but the matter of timing and what can be achieved is important to note, per other team members.
      • Another team member recommended “If all variants can be transferred, then they should be transferred simultaneously/same time. Otherwise, this should be made known to the requestor beforehand and an agreement now whether to proceed or not”
      • Other language recommendations from team members included:
        • “And the structure of the variant set does not change as a result of such transfer”
        • “Must also be transferred to the same gaining registrar in a single atomic transaction”
    • In the Preliminary Recommendation 6 rationale,  “Redemption” there was objection to use the qualifier “Which is an extremely rare occurrence in practice” which was universally supported by the team.
      • This is the same in the “Pending Deletion” bullet. The above quote will be deleted.
        • For the “Pending Deletion” bullet, there was discussion on if the text remains valid and if the remaining language makes sense.
          • One team member mentioned that if the source is deleted, the set can fall apart.
          • Staff reminded that this may not be true at the second level
          • Another member discussed their argument for dealing with  
          • The integrity of the set must be investigated, per a different team member 
          • One team member commented “the understanding that the re-election of source will be left to registry/registrar policy” 
          • There was a comment submitted “If the domain name being deleted is the source or primary domain name it may have an impact of the rest of the set. This sentence seems to imply there should not be an impact, to which we have said, leave it to registry policy.”
            • ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review the Prelim. Rec. 6 Rationale and report back with potentially updated language for bullets such as “Pending Deletion”
    • Moving to Prelim. Rec. 7, there was an agreement to remove “Either voluntarily or involuntarily” from the text and to change “allocated” to “activated”. 
      • There was a discussion about initiating the transfer process for the domain 
        • Some alternative text was proposed
          • “… for a domain name, which is a member of a variant domain name set, the process…”
            • This was generally agreed to. There was some dissent as it may not be necessary, but it was agreed to by all under the condition that if it made it more clear, then it should be added. 
            • Staff made this change in real time.
    • In the rationale for Prelim. Rec. 7, the hierarchy for importance in the steps were discussed in terms of using “the most important step”. “The most” was removed to remove confusion.
      • Also discussed was the use of sponsorship vs ownership. To avoid confusion in different jurisdictions, ownership will be replaced by sponsorship in this case. 
        • ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review the document for use of “ownership” to ensure correct and consistent usage as compared with the word “sponsorship”
      • In the last paragraph of the P.R.7 rationale, there was a discussion for what can be deleted 
        • One team member left a comment for proposed text that received approval from the chat, but a different team member suggested deleting the text as it complicated things. It was suggested to leave this up to the registry or registrar to implement. There were no objections to deleting the three sentences in the proposed text.
          • This was completed in real time.
      • A comment from a team member stated: “"together" might be a good term to replace" simultaneously", "at the same time", "atomic transaction" in an earlier recommendation.” 
  • AOB
    • The chair and staff hope to complete the charter questions next week before the F2F. 
    • The vice chair updated the team that she is stepping down from the EPDP team. She will not be able to make the face to face meeting but thanked everyone for their efforts throughout the EPDP and sent her gratitude to everyone for allowing her to serve as vice chair. 
      • Many messages in chat were sent in response, all of them in support of and appreciation for Justine and her efforts with the EPDP.



  • No labels