EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
In October 2020, an IDN scoping team released its Final Report, which recommended an EPDP, which the GNSO Council initiated in November 2020. The charter drafting team built on the existing body of work on IDNs, such as recommendations from the [[Sub Pro|gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP]], IDN variant TLD implementation, and the Root Zone Label Generation Rules ([[RZ-LGR]]). On May 10, 2021, the drafting team submitted its deliverables, such as the definition of all gTLDs and the management of variant labels and how IDN Implementation Guidelines should be updated. Ten days later, the GNSO Council approved the initiation request for the EPDP-IDNs and adopted its charter. The EPDP-IDNs working group held its first meeting on 11 August 2021. | In October 2020, an IDN scoping team released its Final Report, which recommended an EPDP, which the GNSO Council initiated in November 2020. The charter drafting team built on the existing body of work on IDNs, such as recommendations from the [[Sub Pro|gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP]], IDN variant TLD implementation, and the Root Zone Label Generation Rules ([[RZ-LGR]]). On May 10, 2021, the drafting team submitted its deliverables, such as the definition of all gTLDs and the management of variant labels and how IDN Implementation Guidelines should be updated. Ten days later, the GNSO Council approved the initiation request for the EPDP-IDNs and adopted its charter. The EPDP-IDNs working group held its first meeting on 11 August 2021. | ||
In August 2022, the working group completed its first substantive deliberations on questions related to four topics. | In August 2022, the working group completed its first substantive deliberations on questions related to four topics. | ||
===Drafting First Group Recommendations=== | ===Drafting First Group Recommendations=== | ||
As of December 2022, the EPDP Team had developed draft the following draft recommendations. | As of December 2022, the EPDP Team had developed draft the following draft recommendations. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
#:The EPDP Team recommends that | #:The EPDP Team recommends that | ||
#*the RZ-LGR be the sole source to calculate the variant labels and disposition values for existing delegated gTLD labels. | #*the RZ-LGR be the sole source to calculate the variant labels and disposition values for existing delegated gTLD labels. | ||
#* SubPro’s limited challenge mechanism for DNS Stability Review applies in cases where the applicant believes that the label is valid as per the RZ-LGR and that the DNS Stability Panel has incorrectly assessed the label as "invalid", thus resulting in the application having been incorrectly disqualified. | #*SubPro’s limited challenge mechanism for DNS Stability Review applies in cases where the applicant believes that the label is valid as per the RZ-LGR and that the DNS Stability Panel has incorrectly assessed the label as "invalid", thus resulting in the application having been incorrectly disqualified. | ||
#*No ceiling value is necessary as existing measures in the RZ-LGR to reduce the number of allocatable top-level variant labels, as well as economic, operational, and other factors that may impact the decision to seek to activate variant labels will keep the number of activated top-level variant labels conservative. | #*No ceiling value is necessary as existing measures in the RZ-LGR to reduce the number of allocatable top-level variant labels, as well as economic, operational, and other factors that may impact the decision to seek to activate variant labels will keep the number of activated top-level variant labels conservative. | ||
#*Best practice guidelines should be developed for the management of a gTLD and its variant labels by registries and registrars with a view to ensuring a consistent user experience. | #*Best practice guidelines should be developed for the management of a gTLD and its variant labels by registries and registrars with a view to ensuring a consistent user experience. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
#*In the unexpected event where a proposed update of the RZ-LGR is unable to retain full backward compatibility for validating any existing gTLDs as well as their delegated and allocated variant labels (if any), the relevant GP must call out the exception during a public comment period and explain the reasons for such exception. | #*In the unexpected event where a proposed update of the RZ-LGR is unable to retain full backward compatibility for validating any existing gTLDs as well as their delegated and allocated variant labels (if any), the relevant GP must call out the exception during a public comment period and explain the reasons for such exception. | ||
#*Single-character gTLDs may only be allowed for limited scripts and languages where a character is an ideograph. At the time of the EPDP Team's deliberation, the script that meets the criteria is the Han script, which is used in the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages. Applications for single-character gTLDs will not be accepted until relevant guidelines from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean language communities are implemented in the New gTLD Program. | #*Single-character gTLDs may only be allowed for limited scripts and languages where a character is an ideograph. At the time of the EPDP Team's deliberation, the script that meets the criteria is the Han script, which is used in the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages. Applications for single-character gTLDs will not be accepted until relevant guidelines from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean language communities are implemented in the New gTLD Program. | ||
#* A given variant label may have one of the following label states: delegated, allocated, withheld-same-entity, blocked, or rejected. If the same terminology is used for certain label states and new gTLD application statuses, their respective definitions should be consistent. | |||
# the “same entity” principle at the top level, | # the “same entity” principle at the top level, | ||