[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Deadline 10 January: Provide questions for SSAC members

Jeff Neuman jeff at jjnsolutions.com
Fri Jan 7 20:25:40 UTC 2022

Here are my questions based on SSAC 60

SAC060 notes that variant code points in LGR may Introduce a “permutation issue”, possibly creating a large number of variant domain names, which “presents challenges for the management of variant domains at the registry, the registrar and registrant levels.”

SAC060 advises that “ICANN should ensure that the number of strings that are activated is as small as possible.

1.  Although this advice sounds standing sounds like it is sensible:
a.           How can this practically be implemented?
b.           What does “As small as possible” really mean?
c.           Who determines what is “as small as possible” means?
d.           What is a number that would be anything other than arbitrary?
2.  According to the Rationale, it appears that the SSAC is presenting this advice to protect registries, registrars and registrants from themselves.  In other words, the advice assumes that registries, registrars and registrants will want to activate more strings than they would be able to handle.
a.           Normally all policy starts from the basic presumption that each of the actors involved will act in a rational manner and in their own best interests.  This is the basis of all business and economic theory.  But this policy recommendation takes the opposite view and starts from the premise that registries, registrars and registrants will essentially try to activate more than they can handle and thus we need to protect them from themselves.  Is there any evidence upon which that assumption is based?
b.           Given no proof that registries will intentionally activate more strings than they can handle, should we really be placing any artificial limits?
c.           Assuming we either have or do not have a limit, how do we determine when a registry, registrar or registrar has more challenges than they can handle?  What do we do?  Is this really an ICANN problem?
d.           Finally, given all of the above, shouldn’t we allow registries, registrars and registrars figure out what it is that they can handle as opposed to placing an arbitrary limit?

[cid:image001.png at 01D803CF.0CF5F970]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>

From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 2:23 PM
To: gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Deadline 10 January: Provide questions for SSAC members

Dear all,

As discussed on today’s call, EPDP Team members are requested to draft specific questions they would like to ask SSAC members on the 13 January call.

For reference, you can find the early written input from SSAC members here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/176621266/SSAC2021-09.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1637184294000&api=v2>.

Kindly respond to this message with your questions for SSAC members no later than Monday, 10 January.

Kind regards,
Ariel, Steve, and Emily

Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20220107/9975643c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20220107/9975643c/image001-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list