[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue May 9 19:44:51 UTC 2017

Thanks Rubens.  I do not think that these specific TLD strings have to be specifically mentioned in our Charter.  They simply fall under the category of name collisions, clearly within scope.  As you point out, it is not because something became an issue in the first round that it falls outside our remit.

Don’t we say it’s the GNSO that makes policy, not the Board?  You said that as to new applications for very risky names,
“That's one of the policy questions I mentioned.”

It makes no sense to me that cases of very risky name collision strings going forward are within the scope of Sub Pro but that very risky name collision issues identified with .home, .corp, and .mail are dealt with directly by the Board.  Shouldn’t the same consistent policy (developed according to a Multi-Stakeholder bottom-up process with ample opportunity for public comment) apply to very risk name collision strings regardless of application date?

Why would the Board be in charge of name collision mitigation policy for very risky names in connection with 2012 round applications, while  Sub Pro and GNSO are in charge of name collision mitigation policy for very risky names not yet applied for?

Attached is the letter from Akram dealing with this topic.


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>


[cid:image003.png at 01D2C8C2.05D80720]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 6:06 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Hi Anne.

Responses to both your messages inline.

On May 6, 2017, at 12:05 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

Thanks Jeff.  Are you saying that name collision policy as to .home, .corp, and .mail are “out of scope” for our group?

It's not in our charter, so it's out of scope as far as ICANN PDP rules go. Note that this is not due to belonging to a previous round, since we are indeed looking at at least 3 issues that applied for 2012 and legacy gTLDs, but due to not being listed in the charter.

If so, how would policy on these reserved strings be made?  A letter was sent last August to the Board asking for the release of these names.   How does that request fit into the policy-making process?  Or are we saying the Board should respond to that letter with “Done deal in Round 1”.   Has the Board responded to that August letter and could staff provide that to the list if so?

I believe that if a response was sent, it would have been published.

A larger concern re “the next round” (if it’s a round) is whether there are other names that are similarly risky.  And how can this be known in a timely manner?  Given past experience, it appears  there should be an orderly process for assessing name collision risk as to any particular TLD string BEFORE any other evaluation, objection, or string contention process kicks in.  That way everyone (theoretically) saves time and money.

That's one of the policy questions I mentioned.

Hi Rubens.  Thanks for your careful and detailed presentation last night.  (I learned a lot!)

People interested in more of it could take a look at these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sgaq6OYLX8 (Name collisions in legacy gTLDs)

https://youtu.be/XRvk6ySPwTc?t=1h1m53s (NTAG and Interisle positions of the first name collision report)

 Jeff mentioned he did not know whether JAS Advisors was still around.  They are apparently still around and still doing Internet security work.  (See link below.)

Unfortunately, the Org clogged  what could be a simple consultation process, and made it to fail. Next time we try a different order of process and see if it works better.

As mentioned during the call, I think we need an update from JAS to this group in order to deal properly with the policy-making process.  After all, this was the basis for the New gTLD Program Committee action so if we change that recommendation, we need a basis for rejecting the expert advice they obtained other than the anecdotal observation that  "we think JAS went overboard".  This is especially true as to .home, .corp, and .mail.  I realize this will cost money but have no idea how much.  Can we get an estimate?

Since we already clarified why this is not scope for the PDP, I have more liberty to express my personal opinions on this issue: I don't think JAS went overboard with .home and .corp. The problems with these strings are very hard to address, and it's quite possible a decades-long problem to solve, like cleaning up River Thames.

But for .mail, the available evidence suggests a large collision problem for the dotless mail string, not for <names>.mail. Actually, mail.<TLD> is more of a concern, so some registries have prevented mail as a domain. So while the standardised framework would not work for .mail, devising a suitable framework is not that hard: just take out the dotless response from the wildcard controlled interruption. The .mail contract could have an extra provision where a dotless response, which is already not allowed, could trigger an EBERO transition in very little time.



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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170509/6c227ea3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170509/6c227ea3/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: atallah-to-home-registry-inc-et-al-06mar17-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 236704 bytes
Desc: atallah-to-home-registry-inc-et-al-06mar17-en.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170509/6c227ea3/atallah-to-home-registry-inc-et-al-06mar17-en-0001.pdf>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list