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

Satish Babu sbabu at ieee.org
Mon Jan 10 02:30:21 UTC 2022 

Dear all

The ALAC Team has the following comments and questions* vis-à-vis* SAC060
and SSAC2021-09. These are limited to Part A charter questions, and we
understand that SSAC members will be invited again to discuss other parts
of their early input when the EPDP Team considers the rest of the charter
questions.

SAC060 Recommendation 14 says,

* “ICANN should ensure that the number of strings that are activated is
conservative”; and goes on to rationalize that:“Variants introduce a
permutation issue both at top level as well as with combinations of the top
level and second level”, *giving the following example:

   - A TLD string with 4 char with 3 variants each, produces a variant set
   of 81 different strings (3^4 = 81)
   - An SLD (under such above TLD) with 4 char with 3 variants each,
   produces a variant set of 72,171 different strings (3^4 x 3^4 = 72,171)

*and that "[s]uch a large number of variant strings present challenges for
management of variant domains at the registry, the registrar and registrant
levels." *

*Question #1: Could the authors please elaborate, by using a theoretical
example, on the nature of the challenges in managing variant domains
at registry, the registrar and registrant levels? *

In agreeing with the user experience report recommendation that ICANN must
implement a conservative variant TLD allocation process, SSAC suggests:

   - In SAC060, that “*A variant TLD application must be accepted only if
   the TLD applicant clearly demonstrates the necessity for activating the
   string. Variants that are not necessary, but are desired, must not be
   allocated and activated*” and
   - In SSAC2021-09, that “*..there should be a mechanism to ensure that
   the number of delegated top-level variant labels remains small. Unless
   there is demonstrated widespread usage of the variant label, the variant
   label should not be activated.*”

*Question #2: Could the authors please suggest criteria for or provide
examples of what constitutes a demonstration of “the necessity for
activating the string” or “widespread usage of the variant label”?*


With kind regards







satish



On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:42 AM Donna at registry.godaddy
<Donna at registry.godaddy> wrote:

> Thanks Jeff, your 1. Below may need a rewrite.
>
>
>
> A reminder to others that it would be great if we could get your questions
> by cob Monday 10 January (UTC 23:59)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces at icann.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 6:26 AM
> *To:* Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>;
> gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Deadline 10 January: Provide
> questions for SSAC members
>
>
>
> Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad at .
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> *Questions*
>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>
> http://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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F176621266%2FSSAC2021-09.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1637184294000%26api%3Dv2&data=04%7C01%7Cdonna%40registry.godaddy%7C8cb046d9acc14e45a55c08d9d21bf177%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637771840665310886%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=SpG11swN3bh%2B1xKwt8pIJBxFkyXjnOE9KTQjfhb0ZtE%3D&reserved=0>.*
>
>
>
> 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
>
> www.icann.org
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cdonna%40registry.godaddy%7C8cb046d9acc14e45a55c08d9d21bf177%7Cd5f1622b14a345a6b069003f8dc4851f%7C0%7C0%7C637771840665310886%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=txbaCNGpP1bdHNa75Q7nNM3%2BIXNhoXzv4fQ6dx202kw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-idn-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20220110/e5b30b00/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11451 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20220110/e5b30b00/image003-0001.png>

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