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

Fri Oct 13 02:22:14 UTC 2017

Thanks for clarifying that Kristina.  The home page for the DNS-OARC does not make a distinction as to the particular entity:  https://www.dns-oarc.net/  Nevertheless, mentioning applicants for a frozen TLD was apparently a major “faux pas” on my part and I apologize.  To be clear,  I personally have a very high regard for both Amazon and Google and their representatives at ICANN and believe they operate at the highest level of integrity.

I only mentioned this funding status because several have commented that any new name collision framework could also be applied to applications that were not permitted to go forward in 2012 due to name collision issues.   The Board received a letter from some other applicants about this back in August of 2016:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/home-registry-inc-et-al-to-icann-board-24aug16-en.pdf

The Board responded as follows to that letter:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-registry-inc-et-al-06mar17-en.pdf   So it’s easy to see why the Board would want to consider applying the new Name Collision Framework recommended by the GNSO Sub Pro PDP (and presumably to be adopted by the GNSO in a recommendation to the Board) to 2012 round applications that are frozen and still pending (per the public record).

For anyone in the subgroup who does not know, the current status of .home, .corp, and .mail is listed at the ICANN website as “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”.    Please see public records pasted below.  For existing Framework provisions discussing why these names are frozen,  see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf ).  Once again, I would recommend that the subgroup contract for paid independent technical advice on the proposed new name collision framework as was the case in connection with the names that were frozen in the 2012 round.  I do not know why we are further delaying in this regard, especially since we apparently want to adopt three categories of risk – low, medium, and high.  This will definitely require professional, paid, and independent technical advice in my opinion.

[cid:image005.png at 01D34384.71E0AC50]

[cid:image003.png at 01D34385.3B55DAB0]

[cid:image001.png at 01D3437B.B6A26210]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

[cid:image007.png at 01D3438F.68770050]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:rosettek at amazon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:36 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl'
Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

For the record, neither Amazon EU Sarl (the applicant for .MAIL) nor Amazon Registry Services, Inc. (the Registry Operator) is the Amazon entity that is the Bronze member of DNS-OARC.  Any suggestion to the contrary has no factual basis.

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: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:57 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

P.S. I only point out Google and Amazon as members of the organization mentioned in 3.(c)  below because both are applicants for the .mail TLD (now “on hold” and frozen due to name collision issues).

For anyone who does not know, our firm represents the United States Postal Service.

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 01D3437F.E6832BA0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:33 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl'
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

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.)

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)

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 01D3437F.E6832BA0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

Rubens,
Are you saying that staff recommended stick with current policy and current AGB language in Question 23 as an alternative?

Nope, Staff alerted us that all 3 proposals are not that much different among each other and from current implementation, so they suggested it to also be considered in the whole process. Policy staff has a tradition of keeping a neutral standing and I would be surprised if they ever took position on anything, and they didn't in this case. I just tried to give credit were credit's due, since it was them that realised that.

That said, I believe that moving forward comparing to current implementation will make sense for a good number of WT4 discussion topics, so this is likely to appear at some topics ahead. And looking ahead for the full WG Draft Report, I would be in favor in doing for the majority of themes, in fact.

Rubens

________________________________

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/20171013/9a9d886a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171013/9a9d886a/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 48388 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171013/9a9d886a/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 56326 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171013/9a9d886a/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 58085 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171013/9a9d886a/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171013/9a9d886a/image007-0001.png>