[Comments-ssac-review-final-15oct18] Comment re: SSAC2 Draft Final Report

[John Poole]

Comment re: Draft Final Report
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ssac-review-final-2018-10-15-en> of
The Second Security and Stability Advisory Committee Review (SSAC2)  a/k/a
"Independent Review of the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC)" Draft Final Report
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-independent-review-draft-final-15oct18-en.pdf>
(pdf)

I have read all 84 pages of this mostly worthless report, much of which is
regurgitation of already existing documentation that could, and should,
have been referenced via footnotes and an appropriate appendix, but I guess
the "Review Team" had to justify their fees somehow.

The report fails to meet its purported purposes (p.2 of the draft),
including, but not limited to, *"How effectively the SSAC fulfills its
purpose and whether any change in structure or operations is needed to
improve effectiveness. The extent to which the SSAC as a whole is
accountable to the wider ICANN community, its organizations, committees,
constituencies, and stakeholder groups."*

On July 1, 2018, I sent the email below which the Review Team conveniently
ignored, and even followed that email up with a question at the Assessment
Report Webinar - 12 July 2018 @ 20:00 UTC
<https://community.icann.org/display/ACCSSAC/Assessment+Report+Webinar+-+12+July+2018+@+20%3A00+UTC>,
only to be given a vague, non-responsive answer.

The fundamental, core failings of the SSAC (and as a result, ICANN) to the
global internet community, including domain name registrants worldwide (as
raised in my email below), are *not* addressed in the "Draft Final Report."

It is not hard to understand why most ICANN reviews are considered by many
a  "waste of time" and ICANN is held in such low regard by the global
internet community, including most domain name registrants worldwide.

John Poole
gTLD Domain Name Registrant, and Editor, DomainMondo.com
<https://www.DomainMondo.com>

cc: NTIA (David Redl), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Poole
Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:05 AM
Subject: Comment re: SSAC2 Review: Assessment Report
To: mssi-secretariat at icann.org

Comment re:  *SSAC2 Review: Assessment Report
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-21-en>*  via email to:
mssi-secretariat at icann.org

I request that the *Analysis Group* address *SSAC'*s inexplicable *failures* in
regard to *new gTLDs*--failures subsequently acknowledged, implicitly, by
SSAC's ICANN Board liaison--read: More Problems Crop Up With Universal
Acceptance of Top Level Domains
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140207_more_problems_crop_up_universal_acceptance_of_top_level_domains/>
by
Ram Mohan, Feb 07, 2014, particularly in view of ICANN's contract provision
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en>
 with *new gTLDs registry operators*:

"*1.2 Technical Feasibility of String*.  While ICANN has encouraged and
will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain
strings across the Internet, *certain top-level domain strings may
encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation
by web applications*.  Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring
to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to
entering into this Agreement." (emphasis added)

And further, SSAC failing to demand or even recommend that either ICANN or
the new gTLDs' registry operators and registrars *warn* prospective
registrants of *new gTLDs' domain names **"failing to work as expected on
the internet."*

*How could a group of otherwise competent professionals be so irresponsible
and negligent? *I can only speculate, but I attribute it to "*conflicts of
interest*"--for example, Ram Mohan, a member of the SSAC and ICANN Board
(2008-present) <https://www.icann.org/news/multimedia/3017> is employed by
*Afilias*, a new gTLDs applicant and TLD registry operator, including
providing new gTLDs' backend registry services.

*What we now know* is that apparently *no one* tested for *"technical
feasibility"* *before* hundreds of new gTLDs
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/> were negligently and irresponsibly
delegated by ICANN into the global internet root-- UASG017
<https://uasg.tech/documents/>: Evaluation of Websites for Acceptance of a
Variety of Email Addresses:


UASG017
<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/UASG-Report-UASG017.pdf> (pdf):
"*Conclusion: *There is much work to be done to get many of the world’s
websites UA and EAI-ready. Where we thought we could address just a few
applications and code repositories, that does *not* appear to be the case."

But *domain name registrants* still are *not* warned that their *new gTLDs'*
 *domain names* may *"fail to work as expected on the internet."* Occasionally
they show up at an ICANN meeting to complain, but *no one of consequence at
ICANN cares about domain name registrants*--*"it's all about the money."
<https://www.domainmondo.com/p/notable-quotes.html>*

Respectfully submitted,

John Poole

Domain Name Registrant and editor, DomainMondo.com
<https://www.domainmondo.com/>

July 1, 2018
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-ssac-review-final-15oct18/attachments/20181021/d55ddffd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: newgTLDsFAIL-UA.PNG
Type: image/png
Size: 33178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-ssac-review-final-15oct18/attachments/20181021/d55ddffd/newgTLDsFAIL-UA-0001.PNG>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CommentSSAC2finalDraft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 120922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-ssac-review-final-15oct18/attachments/20181021/d55ddffd/CommentSSAC2finalDraft-0001.pdf>