[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 13:58, Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks both, for clarifying.  I will review the comments again.  I did not think there was broad support for the recommendation for a Do Not Apply list,

The support I mentioned was in WT discussion towards the initial report. Public comment analysis is what was done by SGs after the initial report, and whether the comments supported or not is up to Full WG.

> but perhaps that's my recollection because commenters were concerned about the vagueness of the recommendation (and speculation about its viability), which may ultimately be the focus of this discussion.   I hear Anne saying she thinks there should be definition ahead of time


Which was Anne's position all along if my memory serves.

> and I hear Rubens saying that it shouldn't be gating...if the implementation on do not apply fails, then we could keep going and say we tried.

Not me, the initial report. I actually think the Do Not Apply list is one of most interesting features of the improved framework and I would think it's a shame if it doesn't get implemented, but the language in the report was a compromise language that, to the best of staff and leadership efforts, reflected the sentiment of the WT.


Rubens



> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Kristine
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 7:24 PM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Mar 2019, at 11:59, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve been trying to follow this thread, thanks to Anne and Jeff and others for the open dialogue.  I may be a bit lost on this because I was on holiday before Kobe and missed a couple of meetings.
>> 
>> Below, Anne says:
>> As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed.  If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020.
>> 
>> As I recall, there is no consensus that there should be a Do Not Apply list (or a low- medium- high-risk characterization).  That was a point for discussion and not all comments supported this.  Is this discussion then purely theoretical, since we don’t even know if such a list should exist?
>> 
> 
> Kristine,
> 
> The initial report was not based on consensus calls, so we can't say anything in it had consensus or lack thereof. But the new framework, including the creation of such list, reached a level of general agreement warranting its inclusion as a recommendatioin the initial report, which is not just a point of discussion.
> 
> 
> But the recommendation itself is not the creation of such a list is mandatory:
> "Efforts should be undertaken to create a “Do Not Apply” list of TLD strings that pose a substantial name collision risk whereby application for such strings would not be allowed to be submitted."
> 
> I read that to state that having such a list would be a welcome feature and would be allowed, but an implementation that failed to create such a list after having tried would still met the stated policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubens
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190309/7f45343c/signature.asc>