<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 9, 2017, at 9:44 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" class="">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">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. </span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The topic should have been mentioned, not the specific strings. Like "Closed Generics" were mentioned applying to the 2012-round, even though not mentioning specific strings. This is what we have in the charter:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>"Name collisions: How should name collisions be incorporated into future new gTLD
rounds? What measures may be needed to manage risks for 2012-round gTLDs beyond
their 2 year anniversary of delegation, or gTLDs delegated prior to the 2012 round?"</div><div><br class=""></div><div>So, for 2012-round gTLDs, we can only look at measures for delegated gTLDs. At least with the charter as it is now. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">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,</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“That's one of the policy questions I mentioned.”<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">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?</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The next procedures might have very different application rules, depending on the outcome of this PDP; those applications were made with the 2012 rules, and unless for topics specifically punted for this PDP (like closed generics), they are the ones in force, not what we discuss here. Same applies for other contentious issues like community applications, where some 2012 applications are still pending but will be judged against the 2012 criteria. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;" class="">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?</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Actually, the Board acted within what was specified in the 2007 GNSO Policy for such issues. </div><div>Principle D: "A set of technical criteria must be used for
assessing a new gTLD registry applicant to
minimise the risk of harming the operational
stability, security and global interoperability of
the Internet."</div><div>Recommendation 4: "Strings must not cause any technical instability."</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We might have disagreements with the implementation, specially since it at least contradicted principle A (predictability), but we didn't have in 2012 the implementation oversight mechanisms that are mandated since September 2015, output of a work that started exactly due to implementation issues seen in the 2012-round. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>