2023-04-27 IDNs EPDP - Meeting #80

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items

Action Item 1: Confirm on list that there are no objections to moving future meetings to 12:00 UTC. Idea is to start with new meeting time for 11 May meeting.

Notes

Welcome and Chair Updates

• Would there be any objection to starting meetings an hour earlier (12:00 UTC)?
• No objections from those on the call

Action Item 1: Confirm on list that there are no objections to moving future meetings to 12:00 UTC. Idea is to start with new meeting time for 11 May meeting.

• In line with recent changes to the WG Self-Assessment, the team can expect to receive a periodic self-assessment shortly for completion. The objective is to provide the Council with insights into the Team’s operation.

Analysis of Phase 2 Charter Questions and Project Plan Development

• Analysis was shared with the team regarding phase 2 charter questions and Board request
• For today’s meeting, focus would be on a high-level analysis to get a common understanding on what our project plan looks like and what can be shared with the Council by ICANN77 and then communicated to the ICANN Board
• Board requested a project plan identifying all charter questions that will impact the next Applicant Guidebook
• See impact analysis summary on slide 5 which is developed based on a number of assumptions.
• The table makes an initial assessment on whether each phase 2 question is expected to affect the next AGB, application question and/or contractual obligations.
• Note that some updates were made to the analysis based on further conversations with ICANN org staff, namely D5 (changed from ‘no’ to ‘maybe’ for impact on AGB), G1 (changed from ‘no’ to ‘maybe’ for impact on AGB), G1a (changed from ‘no’ to ‘maybe’ for impact on AGB).
• Note that it is expected that the base agreement will be included as part of the AGB, which differs from how this was managed for the previous round.
• Phase 2 chunking and proposed sequence – see slide 10. Idea is that related / connect questions are dealt with in sequence. 
• Majority of questions seem to belong in Chunk 1 (AGB/RA Impact) for 38 meetings, with a contingency buffer of 9 meetings. For chunk 2 (no AGB/RA Impact) the estimate is 11 meetings with 2 contingency meetings.
• D6 and D6a – if as a result of a dispute, a domain would be transferred, the other variants may need to be transferred as well. From a registry agreement point of view this would have an operational impact so might belong in the orange table? Tables only set out proposed sequencing for charter questions – they all need to be addressed. Rationale outlines why it is the view that there may not be a direct impact on AGB/RA although indirect impact may be likely.
• Noting the limited number of questions in chunk 2, it may not make sense to have a phase 2a and a phase 2b, but instead deal with these all questions in the same phase. As part of the project plan, the proposed order would be shared together with the proposed timeline, based on the assumption that the team is working once a week for 2 hours. There may be ways to shorten timeline, either through F2F time or adding additional meetings, but for the purpose of this exercise it would be based on meetings once a week for 2 hours. Also need to consider the challenges with having 2 meetings a week.
• Team should set a target date but should maybe consider a drop dead target date with the aim to compress work and get done by end of 2024.
• Also need to take maximum advantage of F2F time at ICANN meetings – for ICANN77, a meeting has been scheduled for every day of the meeting.
• Idea is to share the project plan with Council as outlined on slide 12 – option 1 (delivery of Final Report by October 2025). Would be helpful to hear from Board if there is a drop-dead date by which work needs to be finalized if that does not align with proposed project plan.
• By DC meeting, there will be more clarity on the timelines of the different dependencies – based on that an integrated timeline is to be developed by August.
• Could consider including impact that F2F meetings may have on timeline to illustrate potential benefit. A member proposed two F2F meetings, one in 2023 and one in 2024 to speed up the work.
• No objections noted to move forward with option 1 and not have a separate phase 2b.

Presentation: Introduction to IDN Tables (Sarmad)

• See slides shared during the meeting and presentation provided by Sarmad on IDN Tables for second level domains (please review the zoom recording for the presentation)
• IDN Table = Variant Table = Label Generation Rules (LGR)
• Objective of IDN tables is to enable second-level domain names in the local languages and scripts used by local communities in a safe and secure manner
• IDN tables for the second level are developed and used by registries
• Note that items referenced from the IDN Guidelines 4.0 have been deferred by the Board, as they overlap with the Phase 2 charter questions.
• When this group consider the question of harmonization, it may be important that data from current IDN registrations in gTLDs is gathered (i.e. the impact on existing registrations if harmonization is required)

AOB

• No call next week – next meeting will be on Thursday 11 May
• Staff and leadership will continue work on project plan & timeline and will circulate updated version to team in due time