2022-12-01 IDNs EPDP - Meeting #60

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items

Action Item 1: Clarify in B4, Response to Discussion Question 2 that an RO can request an extension on the 12-month delegation timeline for variants, consistent with the opportunity to do so for other strings.

Action Item 2: Staff to investigate examples of rationales provided by ROs for requesting an extension on the 12-month delegation timeframe. Staff to investigate if there was a limit of the number of strings for which an RO could request an extension.

Notes

Welcome and Chair Updates

• EPDP Team members are encouraged to catch up with the recording if they were unable to attend today’s call due to the IGF or other conflicts.

Recap of Charter Question B4 [docs.google.com] - Delegation of variants gTLDs vis a vis primary string

• Slide 4 – Recap: B4 Additional Discussion Topic - Discussion Questions & EPDP Team’s Responses 
• Should a variant gTLD be allowed for delegation prior to delegation of the primary string? The EPDP Team agrees that the sequence for delegation of the applied-for primary string and the requested allocatable variant label(s) should not be mandated by policy. The scenario where a variant label is delegated prior to the primary string should be allowed. 
• Should the primary string and allocatable variant labels that pass evaluation be delegated within the timeframe as affirmed by SubPro recommendations? Yes, the EPDP Team agrees that the primary string and the allocatable variant label(s) that pass evaluation should be delegated within the timeframe as affirmed by SubPro recommendations. However, as noted in the response to Question 1, the sequence for delegating these labels does not matter as long as they are delegated within the required timeframe.
• Question: Will our recommendations address a case where the RO seeks to delay delegation of certain variant(s)?
• Response: SubPro recommendations provide for the opportunity to apply for an extension. The expectation is that that opportunity would apply to variants, as well. We may need to state for clarity that you need to delegate within a 12-month period, but you can seek an extension for one or more variant(s).

Action Item 1: Clarify in B4, Response to Discussion Question 2 that an RO can request an extension on the 12-month delegation timeline for variants, consistent with the opportunity to do so for other strings.

Action Item 2: Staff to investigate examples of rationales provided by ROs for requesting an extension on the 12-month delegation timeframe. Staff to investigate if there was a limit of the number of strings for which an RO could request an extension.

Continued Discussion of Charter Question E2 [docs.google.com] - Potential Outcomes for Legal Rights and Community Objections

• Slide 6-7 – Summary of Discussion
• Clarification Question: On slide 6, bullet 1 – it’s not clear specifically which strings can be objected against in the string confusion objection. Why would it be different from the other objection types? On slide 6, the other objection types list each of the possible types of strings that can be objected against.
• Response: Any of the lines between the different labels in the hybrid diagram could be the basis of an objection. Even if a blocked variant of one was confusingly similar to an allocatable variant of another, this could be the basis of an objection. The only combination that can’t be the basis of a string confusion objection is the blocked variant of one label being confusingly similar to the blocked variant of another label.
• For the string similarity review, the evaluation process will compare all of permutations of the hybrid model, only on the basis of visual similarity.
• String confusion objection is broader than visual similarity. It is the prerogative of the objector to specify which strings are part of the objection within the limits of the hybrid model (which specifies which pairs of strings can be the basis of the objection).
• In the string confusion objection, we are comparing two labels with variants. For the other objections processes there is just the reason for the objection and the strings that can be filed against – the objector does not need to have application, so the model is presented differently from the other objections on slide 6.
• Slide 8 – String Confusion Objection - Background
• Slide 9 – String Confusion Objection Prevails – Potential Outcomes
• Comment: Slide 9 only shows what happens if an objection prevails. It does not include the case where an objection fails. If an objection fails and both parties are applicants, applications from both parties can go forward. If the objector is an existing RO and the other party is an applicant, and the objection does not prevail, the application continues through the application process.
• Slide 10 – Limited Public Interest Objection -- Background
• Slide 11 – Limited Public Interest Objection Prevails -- Potential Outcomes
• In discussion with the ccPDP4 team on Tuesday, it was discussed that the applied for variant in the cc context must be a meaningful representation of the name. One thing we haven’t discussed is the meaning of the applied for string and what it represents to the applicant. For something like a Limited Public Interest objection, is it an objection to the string or the meaning of the string that we are talking about? It seems that the concern is actually about the applicant and the way they intend to use the string. This angle may provide additional color to the discussion.
• Some of these considerations might be captured in what was question 18 in the 2012 application.
• Slide 12 – Legal Rights Objection – Background
• Slide 13 – Option 1: Legal Rights Objection Prevails  – Potential Outcomes
• Clarification: In slide 13, path 3, the presumption is that the objection is successful against the primary string. If the objection against the primary string is unsuccessful but the objection against the requested allocatable variants is successful, only the variants are ineligible to proceed (essentially path 2).
• Slide 14 – Option 2: Legal Rights Objection Prevails – Potential Outcomes
• If we allow objections against blocked variants, it is only logical that the result where the objector prevails in all scenarions (1-5) is that the application is ineligible to proceed. Anything else would cause illogical consequences.
• Does it make sense to allow objections in the scenarios 3, 4, and 5 if there is no consequence? It may be cleaner to limit these objections to primary and requested allocatable variants.
• On objection against non-requested allocatable variants (path 3), one potential outcome would be that the string could not be applied for in the future. Would it be simpler to just wait and allow the objection if and when the string is actually applied for?
• Option 2 seems to result in a situation where the variants, including those that will never be in the root, have a very important consequence to the primary string that the applicant has an intent to operate. It seems that this is overly conservative.
• Use case where we would want an objection against a blocked variant – A legal rights holder does not want to apply in the current round but they would like to keep the option to apply in the future. Their label is similar to one of the blocked variants. The only way that they can ensure that at a later point that they can get their brand is to object now. Is that reason enough to allow objections against blocked variants? There are plenty of other cases where first-come, first-serve rules apply and a potential future applicant can’t get “their” string because someone else got there first.
• Preliminary agreement that for Legal Rights Objections, you can only object to the applied for strings.
• Slide 16 – Community Objection – Background
• Slide 17 – Community Objection Prevails – Potential Outcomes
• Conclusions appear to be the same as with Legal Rights Objections.

AOB

• ccPDP4 is allowing anyone who is interested to sit in on their stress testing exercise. Details will follow.