2022-06-29 IDNs EPDP String Similarity Review

Notes/ Action Items

Review of Draft Recommendations 

• Based on what is understood to be preliminary outcomes of this group. Slides are intended to depict the hybrid approach.
• Starting with slide 34, to review previous example.
• Starting with Slide 37, which depicts two applied-for labels. It shows the comparisons expected from the hybrid model. The only thing that is not being compared are the blocked variants of A against the blocked variants of B.
• Understanding confirmed by Michael, Edmon, Jerry.
• Slide 38 and 39 depicts same model, but with three strings involved. Same model of comparison is depicted, but with three strings. A -> B; B -> C; A -> C
• Slide 35 is an applied-for label against an existing label. The element to be confirmed is whether the blocked variants of A should be compared against label B and allocatable B. This addresses the risk of a blocked variant of A being allocated that is similar to existing/allocatable B.
• Michael, Edmon, Jerry, Hadia confirm approach.
• Comment that arrows are perhaps not helpful, since the comparison is the same as for two applied-for strings. Another suggestion is to include two different colored arrows to depict directionality.
• Can color-code the applied-for versus the existing label.
• Sarmad confirms that the directionality is consistent with the AGB. Suggests that depicting the 1) comparison and 2) the possible outcomes separately will aid in understanding.
• Could also break the layers of review into separate slides: Primary A against Primary B, then Allocatable B, then Blocked B. Subsequently, Allocatable A against Primary B, Allocatable B, and Blocked B. Could also use numbers of the arrows to show the progression of the review.
• Slide 36 – same outcomes, just different direction. The consequences, outcomes may be the same, but the manner of the review is important, so that it matches the AGB.
• Slide 32, reviewing Draft Recommendations text. Helpful to look at the pictures of the process and then validate that against the text, as we’ve done today. And it will be important for small team members to contribute to presentation back to the EPDP in support of the outcomes and explaining.
• Some convergence around showing the progression of the review, as well as a consolidated view of the review.

Action Item: Small team to review and comment on draft text and rationale (Staff to send reminder for team to do so).

Objections

• Question from the charter (E1, part 2): What role, if any, do TLD labels “withheld for possible allocation” or “withheld for the same entity” play vis-à-vis objection process?
• Slide 42, graphic  of the objections processes. Slide 43, description of the process from the 2012 round. Review of the types of objections.
• Slide 44, review of the assignment. Includes a question of treatment for allocatable variants not requested by the applicant, as well as blocked variants.

Suggestion to meet at the same time.

Action Item: Staff to schedule a call for next week, same time on 6 July.

Action Item: Staff to circulate slides, which includes the objections slides