[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Fri May 5 22:05:01 UTC 2017

Thanks Jeff.  Are you saying that name collision policy as to .home, .corp, and .mail are “out of scope” for our group?  If so, how would policy on these reserved strings be made?  A letter was sent last August to the Board asking for the release of these names.   How does that request fit into the policy-making process?  Or are we saying the Board should respond to that letter with “Done deal in Round 1”.   Has the Board responded to that August letter and could staff provide that to the list if so?

A larger concern re “the next round” (if it’s a round) is whether there are other names that are similarly risky.  And how can this be known in a timely manner?  Given past experience, it appears  there should be an orderly process for assessing name collision risk as to any particular TLD string BEFORE any other evaluation, objection, or string contention process kicks in.  That way everyone (theoretically) saves time and money.

How do we determine going forward which names pose unreasonable risk and which names will fit within an overall mitigation policy?  Generally speaking, it seems the ultimate goal of the current policy-making activity re name collision in Subsequent Procedures would be to develop a new Framework document that replaces the old one.    The existing Framework adopted by the New gTLD Program Committee for name collision is linked here:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D2C5B0.F5F53710]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:47 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl'; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com)
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Thanks Anne for the note and for participating.  You asked some great questions.  Good to see JAS is still around.

Just to clarify, I am not sure we were talking about rejecting any of the advice from JAS Advisors.  In fact, I think we were agreeing with their advice completely.  As part of the subsequent procedures PDP, I view .home, .corp and .mail out of scope.  These were applications submitted during the 2012 round and are being handled through separate processes.  Those cases will work out however the work out and for our purposes I believe that we were assuming that no one could apply for those names going forward because by the time the next application window comes around, either the names will (i) still be in dispute and therefore on hold, (ii) delegated to one of the 2012 applicants or (iii) permanently reserved.

The discussion last night went to questions of
(i) was controlled interruption the right solution and did it achieve its goals,
(ii) are there other ways these can be achieved,
(iii) is controlled interruption necessary going forward,
(iv) if so, is 90 days the right amount of time or could it be shorter (as JAS alluded to in their final report),
(v) Is the emergency solution still necessary and is 2 years the appropriate time frame for a registry to be “on call” [my words not theirs].
(vi) Are there other terms that due to their volume of DITL queries that should be “reserved” at the top-level?  How do we determine if there are and what those strings are?

There are probably other questions I missed, but I am not sure how any of this goes against the JAS advice.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 6:19 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Hi Rubens.  Thanks for your careful and detailed presentation last night.  (I learned a lot!)

I can't tell whether my message sent afterward ever reached the list.   ( I resent it myself after originally sending by mistake to the ntfy address but my own message never came in to my Inbox or my spam.)

Jeff mentioned he did not know whether JAS Advisors was still around.  They are apparently still around and still doing Internet security work.  (See link below.)  As mentioned during the call, I think we need an update from JAS to this group in order to deal properly with the policy-making process.  After all, this was the basis for the New gTLD Program Committee action so if we change that recommendation, we need a basis for rejecting the expert advice they obtained other than the anecdotal observation that  "we think JAS went overboard".  This is especially true as to .home, .corp, and .mail.  I realize this will cost money but have no idea how much.  Can we get an estimate?

Separately, many thanks to Steve Chan for following up with the GDD on the questions they have not yet answered re our work team.  (And happy travels to those attending the GDD summit.)

See:  https://www.jasadvisors.com/

Thank  you,

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image004.png at 01D2C5AE.69511AB0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:44 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017

Dear WT4 members,

The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 4 May 2017 at 03:00 UTC, 04:00 London, 05:00 Brussels; Wednesday, 3 May 2017 20:00 Los Angeles, 23:00 Washington.

For other times: http://migre.me/wwanH

The proposed agenda is as follows:

1.     Welcome

2.     SOIs

3.    Recap of name collision definitions and advices prior to 2012 application window

4.    Recap of 2012-round collision measures (provisional and final)

5.    Description of possible policy options expressed in CC2 questions

6.    Differences between 2012 implementation and SAC066 SSAC Advice (time permitting)

7.            AOB

Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/

You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option that will be sent in the calendar invitation.

Best,

CLO & Rubens

_______________________________________________

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170505/539b6ba2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170505/539b6ba2/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6500 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170505/539b6ba2/image003-0001.png>