[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 04 May

Thu May 4 14:25:46 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 04 May.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording.  Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. 

Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 04 May

1. Full WG Update:

-- Just sent out our full comment to the CCT-RT he full WG comment.

-- Next call is after next week.

2. Name Collisions: 

Slide 6:

-- Like the way the SSAC described a name collision.  Expecting a certain response.

Slide 7: Name Collisions: New Name, Old Phenomena

-- Was controlled interruption was ever applied?  Was that used?

-- Some resolvers got responses that they sent to their users.

-- TLDs that launched early were given names to block.  in the first 90 days they were given a wild card and any queries would get a wild card.  Would get an ICANN resource page - a result that would look unusual to an administrator.  Controlled interuption was in every new gTL.

Slide 9: Name Collisions after the application window:

Slide 10: Name Collisions after the applications window (2):

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: I am not sure I understand the second bullet.  Do we need to state what causes it?

Slide 13: CC2 Questions:

-- Comment: Name Collision issues are not "one size fits all".  There needs to be coordination between ICANN and the IETF and also an update to the JAS report.

-- Updated dated on the number of updated collisions.  Not sure we need one size fits all.  If you look at the very first string those did not result in a large number of collisions except for .home, .corp, and .mail.

-- Except for IDNs in an internal network.

-- If those high risk TLDs would be delegated do they require a different high-risk TLD mitigation framework.  Still being decided by ICANN.

-- Now there are a lot of questions about collisions.  

-- Patrik Faltstrom will join on the next call.

>From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - probably so if we intend to explore possible remediation "fixess" to address it.

Jeff Neuman: I do not believe we will be exploring what fixes it, but rather just how to mitigate it when it happens.  All of the causes are outside the control of ICANN, the Registries, Registrars, etc.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Jeff - I was referring to "mitigation" as "fixes" - sorry for the short-hand.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So you beleive we need to state that the issues caused by software attempting prediction from partial text which is "caused by software behaviior trying to ... ... ... " in different terms  OR  expplore why this results in collision risk more?

Rubens Kuhl: 045

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Party expects he or she is still on internal server but they land on an external server?

avri doria: Well perhaps in the same way the UA effort is trying to change external behavior to make IDN work better,  there could be a recommendation made on the creation of a simalr process for collisions.  Not perhaps a binding recommendation but perhaps an useful ancilliary recommendation.  i like what 45 says about warning applicants, perhaps a step beyond that is trying to change the bahaviors that casue them.

vitor zhang: I  think this  name collision problem  must be  fixed before  the NEXT ROUND  of  New gTLD  application.  

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Excellent point in terms of proposals from our WT  for the PDP Plenary to consider Avri...  Thanks

Jeff Neuman: There is a bunch of resources at www.icann.org/namecollision

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Noted Vitor,  I suspect SSAC  would agree with you that it needs to be áddressed' which may as Avri is outlining be warnings  as oppossed to actual mitigations  per se.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and  some flexabiliity might be well worth exploring as well

Jeff Neuman: Controlled interruption was applied in all new gTLDs

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):  Weren't there some mitigation steps taken for other TLDs in the first round?  In other words, "controlled interruption" applied for a certain period?

vitor zhang: Thank U, CLO 

Rubens Kuhl: Anne, please note that some people call 2000-round the first round and other people say that about 2012. So I, personally, prefer to refer to the year of the process. 

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Per SSAC "name collisions will always be with us".  So it's a question of degree and frequency.  That's apparently why JAS Advisors recommended permanent reservation of certain TLD names.  COMMENT

Jeff Neuman: The JAS final report agreed with the fact that there will always be collisions....but there are still more collisions in .com.  In addition, collisions occur once a name is deleted and re-registered

avri doria: but it should take a policy process to determine how to implement such an SSAC proposal. i.e the reason we need to look at it.  In the round of '12, it was all handled directly by the Board without community comment.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree Avri - Board delegated decisions to subset of Board that did not have conflicts of interest - New gTLD Program Committee or something like that.

vitor zhang: I  really think namecollision problem  should not be some people's excuse for blocking competitors ……

Jessica Hooper: Any path forward with regard to Name Collision should be navigated with the SSAC advising the community.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Jessica on this.

Jeff Neuman: @Jessica - we will be discussing the the SSAC on the next call.

Jeff Neuman: But I am not sure they will necessarily take this issue up for new advice

Jeff Neuman: We cannot force items onto their agenda

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Jessica that view is why we are pleased to have Ptrick join our WT for the next call to better 'bring us all up to speed, and to progress our discussions on this important matter...

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT:  SSAC has issued new advice in SSAC 90.  They discussed this with the Board in Copenhagen.  COMMENT

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and Yes I am biased  here ;-)

Jessica Hooper: @Jeff  & Cheryl - Perfect! I know we can't force it, but it's in their best interest to discuss this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): This next meeting of our WT will be just after the CC2  inputs come in so we will have additional input to consider from the communities within ICANN  to cinsider as well 

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Why would we NOT get an update from JAS Advisors? QUESTION

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: SSAC said we should coordinate with IETF and others.  Can Patrik or someone else within ICANN get us the IETF list of special reserved names? QUESTION

avri doria: that list is already folded into the ICANN list.

Jeff Neuman: I think (personally) that if we reduced the controlled interruption period to 60 days (which JAS seemed to indicate was fine), then the 1 size fits all should not be an issue

avri doria: and the closer coordination with IETf is one of the thing that is being recommended.  Therre is also work inside IETF to try and get thsi coordinated.

Jeff Neuman: The IETF List of names is published in an RFC, but as Avri said there may be more under consideration

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Jeff - You may be referring to JAS Advice on names not permanently reserved when you talk about the 60 day period.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Personally  @Avri  I think that would be very helpful

Jeff Neuman: @Anne - yes.

Jeff Neuman: @Avri - the question is whether the IETf wants to coordinate with ICANN :)

Steve Chan: @Anne, there are a collection of questions developed by this WT directed at JAS, which were sent to GDD. We are still awaiting a formal response from GDD. Their initial feedback is that the questions likely represent new work and would therefore require a new contract.. New research requests are something this WG can consider, but comments like Jeff's about the existing framework appearing to be a once size fits all solution, should be taken into account. That said, I'll be sure to continue to remind GDD that they owe the WT a response.

avri doria: yes, they add names through the RFC6761 process.  i think there is one moving forward at the moment .alt.  there a 6761 on on .homenet, but that has been changed to .home.arpa. it is something i, among others, do follow.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: One question to SSAC (Patrik) in advance of the call is whether SSAC is making efforts now to coordinate with IETF on name collisions. COMMENT

avri doria: at the moment, the main coorination point is those who particpate in both efforts.

vitor zhang: Is  there any new data  updated  for name collision study  ,   if new method or study tech   has been introduced for this problem ？

avri doria: SSAC would advise, other would decide how to coordinate.

Jeff Neuman: I just went to alt.com to see if that was a brand or someone that would mind......DO NOT Go to ALT.COM.......it is not an appropriate site :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170504/5c607890/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro WT4 Meeting #10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 567470 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170504/5c607890/SubProWT4Meeting10-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170504/5c607890/smime-0001.p7s>