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

Mon Oct 16 18:32:18 UTC 2017

Rubens,
If you check the transcripts, you will find that I first raised consideration of .home, .corp, and .mail in a F2F meeting.  At that time, no one said it was “out of scope.”  That position was developed later.

Later in a call of WT4, I raised this again.  You and Jeff said it was out of scope.  Then at a face-to-face meeting, Jordyn Buchanan also raised the possibility of applying the newly-developed Name Collision Framework to the 2012 TLDs that are on hold and said he thought it would make sense for the new framework to apply.   In that same F2F  meeting, you said we certainly would not object as a group to that, though I personally don’t recall when a consensus may have been developed on that point.

Avri has written publicly about this topic.  I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in her blog in 2016:

[cid:image003.png at 01D3437C.8583CF10]

See full text of blog here:  http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160302_whatever_happened_with_namespace_collision_issues_and_gtld_round/

I don’t think it serves the community for us to be burying our heads in the sand here.  The status of the applications for .home, .corp, and .mail is   “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”.   If there is no technical analysis in terms of degree of risk in relation to these three Top Level Domains that are frozen, we are developing policy for Subsequent Procedures while totally ignoring past experience.  Who does that?  These TLDs would HAVE to form part of that analysis in order for our recommendations to have any credibility whatsoever.

The question would be:  Do they fall under “DO NOT APPLY” or some other category and how are we setting the standards for “Do Not Apply” as well as low, medium, and high risk domains?  Thus far, we have NO PROGRESS in the Subteam on describing these categories and we are not seeking any paid independent technical advice on this.  This has nothing to do with “the best things in life (like family and friends) are free” and it will cause further delay in the process.  It should be quite obvious here that paid independent technical advice is needed to establish a Name Collision Framework for Subsequent Procedures and that any reasonable standard setting for that framework would take into account what happened in this arena in the 2012 round.

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 01D34672.6BEC9840]

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: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Rosette, Kristina; 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 12, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

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 will add the same level of regard to representatives of those companies at DNS-OARC, including assuming positions that contradicts the interest of other business units of their employers, although certainly being what they believe to be in the best interest of their corporations. Simple math: if someone breaks the Internet, Google loses USD 8 mi an hour in AdWords, Amazon loses USD 18 mi an hour in lost sales.

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

I remember commenting this, but I wouldn't call one person "several".

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).

Although they might consider doing it, they haven't requested it, different from closed generics; so because it's not in our charter, we can't factor it in our decision. We can reckon it might have an effect, but our only consideration needs to be subsequent procedures.

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 ).

Just to be clear, it's the finalisation of the 2012-round name collision framework that is preventing those 3 applications from either moving forward or being terminated, not the subsequent procedures one. And in full disclosure, GDD never mentioned to me they were relying in our ongoing work to close that gap in the 2012-round... they seem to have a healthy interest in following the process, but all conversations mentioned subsequent procedures. If they are indeed waiting for us, they are keeping that to themselves.

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.

We have gone thru this in the past and nothing has changed that would make the decision change at this point. As the saying goes, the best things in life are free... but if we can't get the best and need to settle for what can get, so be it.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171016/e751813e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12458 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171016/e751813e/image001-0001.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/20171016/e751813e/image003-0001.png>