[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call Agenda

[Rubens Kuhl]

Martin,

While you are a bit early, your message should be a warning to others joining the call that it might take longer than usual, and/or require IT support... 


Rubens


> Em 8 de jun de 2017, à(s) 16:08:000, Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org> escreveu:
> 
> Hi Rubens,
> 
> Trying to get into Adobe for the call, yet another add-on is being installed, will join in few minutes. Sorry fro the delay.
> 
> Martin Sutton
> Executive Director
> Brand Registry Group
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>> On 8 Jun 2017, at 18:14, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Rubens.  There is nothing about what you say below that persuades me that updated technical advice on the existing framework is not needed.  In fact, the existing framework does not even address evaluation of high risk “unicorn” strings at all and some of the CC2 comments suggest per label review is not needed.
>>  
>> I believe that we are merely slowing the work of this group by not going to the next step in procuring the needed technical advice in a formal manner.  I don’t see any way the members of this group could possibly be comfortable proceeding without it.  If we want timely results in relation to concluding Sub Pro work, we should formulate questions for technical experts and get estimates right now.
>> Anne
>>  
>> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>> Of Counsel
>> 520.629.4428 office
>> 520.879.4725 fax
>> AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
>> _____________________________
>> <image003.png>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>> lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
>>  
>> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>] 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 5:00 AM
>> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call Agenda
>>  
>>  
>> On Jun 8, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Technical Advice Needed
>>  
>> 1.       How to deal with new applications that may present high risk strings in an orderly fashion that does not subject applicants and others to investment of time and money that is wasted. 
>>  
>> Fortunately SSAC had already thought of that in SAC045, and reminded us of it in SAC094. What was clear from the 2012 round is that ICANN simply saying "do your own due diligence" doesn't cut it for this particular topic. We should also note that this discussion is strongly correlated to the predictability discussions we are having in the WG. 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> (This should include advice as to how to coordinate evaluation of special names with IETF.)
>>  
>> This has one more nuance: it's not only IETF, but software development community in general. For instance. while .bit was proposed in IETF special names process for NameCoin, but never got traction there, there is actual software out there that intercepts any request for .bit and makes a NameCoin request instead of a DNS request. As Prof. Lawrence Lessig reminds us, "code is law". 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 2.       Updated technical advice on DITL as the most valuable measure of name collision issues (as per “off the cuff” advice from JAS recently received.)   Are you saying that we use DITL, but don’t use any apd information?  Or are you saying use apd information, but apply controlled interruption to those names?  If so, does controlled interruption answer the concerns of brands where brand names are purchased during Sunrise and then subject to controlled interruption procedures?
>>  
>> What ICANN Org already mentioned is to not do a per-label proceeding of any kind, and I fully agree with that. So even DITL being a solid data source for research, using it blindly (as happened with APD) leads to suffering. 
>> 
>> 
>> 3.       Updated technical advice on the period of controlled interruption – can and should it be shortened?  (RySG comments mention Interisle and talk about seeking additional technical advice.  RySG notes that Advisors should not have any conflicts of interest.)
>>  
>> I believe the ground rule of this PDP of by default keeping the current policies should be taken into consideration as well. 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 4.       Technical advice on individual label review.
>>  
>> Isn't that part of the evaluation process ? 
>> 
>> 
>> 5.       Technical advice on the overall restructuring of the current version of the Name Collision Framework to the extent we believe changes should be considered.   (Please note the existing Name Collision Framework  does not contain a process for identifying high risk strings).   The existing Name Collision Framework should be submitted to technical experts along with any recommendations and questions we may have for the purpose of getting expert advice on the best methods for updating the Framework for the next round.
>>  
>> We do have a suggestion from ICANN's CTO to do some outreach on that. Will talk of it later today. 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Put more bluntly, if we do not obtain more updated expert technical advice on name collision issues and how to handle them going forward, we are the ones “guessing”.
>>  
>> While some knowledge in this area may have evolved, most of it is pretty known for a long time. I believe the single factor that was new in this area was the internal certificates issue, which was dealt with for the 2012-round and is now gone due to new certificate authority practices. 
>>  
>> Note both SSAC and JAS advice are of last month, so they look pretty "fresh" to me. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Rubens
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170608/829c7d9c/attachment-0001.html>