[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> 1.       Yes – that is what I meant when I said “consider as an alternative’.
> 
> 2.       Separately, could you please remind me what we said in Work Track 4 re registry rights in relation to idn equivalents to English TLDs owned by that registry?    (This came up in Work Track 3 as to string similarity issues.)

Regarding specific cases where the IDN TLD happens to be a variant of the ASCII TLD, like .québec and .quebec, the recorded decision was to allow that to the same registry operator, provided some form of bundling is implemented. But it wouldn't apply for instance to translations and transliterations, like the Amazon or the Verisign ones in the 2012-round.

> 
> 3.       Also, do we have any responses yet as to the request for input on revising the name collision framework (high risk, medium risk, low risk categories) as sent to
> 
> (a)    IETF
> (b)   Ripe Labs
> (c)    DNS Operations Analysis and Research Center (We note that Google is a Platinum Member and Amazon is a Bronze member)
> 

We had this exchange in a message where you asked this Sep 12 and I replied Sep 14... nothing has changed since them. I'll quote my response of Sep 14:

"Unfortunately there isn't much substance to report... IETF DNSop WG leadership seems unsure whether it would be a topic for discussion there, and no one responded to the list in DNS-OARC or RIPE DNS WG. What was mentioned both in lists and privately was a bit of surprise that such an effort was ongoing , even from ICANN staffers, and a sense of welcoming this discussion long before instead of after the application window. So my takeaways are: (1) That it was a good move (thanks to ICANN's OCTO suggestion), but a more targeted outreach should be done when we have something more concrete. (2) That we should focus IETF DNSop discussion more towards the Specia Use TLDs theme, something they clearly see as an overlap between IETF and ICANN and are willing to address (3) That DNS-OARC or ICANN DNS Forum would be the forums and events that we should keep interacting with. "

Regarding DNS-OARC, the membership of DNS-OARC is quite diverse and representative... for instance, Verisign is the only Diamond (the highest level) member and their instance on name-collisions is very different from other applicants and registries. ICANN is a Platinum member, my employer is a Sliver member, JAS Advisors is a Bronze member, the US Army is a supporter member... considering that diversity I'm still comfortable with OARC as a forum to discuss these topics. And considering DNS-OARC is the source of the DITL data that was key in many decisions regarding name collisions, they are likely to still play a significant part in the continuation of this topic for the years ahead.
Even for Goole and Amazon, that are members, their representatives on DNS-OARC meeting are usually not from the registry operations; for instance, Google's Warren Kumari is an SSAC member and he was the one that brought to the surface the certificate collision problem... so even those global companies have different units with possibly different motivations than their registry branch.


We don't know at this point the 2018 scheduling of DNS-OARC Workshops, ICANN GDD Summit and ICANN DNS Forum, but as soon as those schedules become firm dates it will become more clear which of those meetings we should aim for to present the then-current revised framework and get their feedback. But that doesn't prevent sending partials to applicable mailing lists; from the 3 above, the only one I won't send this anymore is IETF DNSop, where the discussion theme (not the framework itself) was not well received.



Rubens



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171011/38b713bb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171011/38b713bb/signature.asc>