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

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On Oct 16, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

The output of the discussion group and the new charter of our WG both predate any F2F discussions... so we can't call it of developed later. Perhaps realised 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.

We don't have to reach a consensus on out-of-scope topics, because we are not discussing them. Whoever have to decide on them, also have to figure out a decision making process for it.


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


Which said "the community", not the SubPro PDP, CCT-RT, RPM-PDP or any of other ongoing review efforts.



> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> 
> See full text of blog here:  http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160302_whatever_happened_with_namespace_collision_issues_and_gtld_round/ <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.

We are not ignoring past experience, we are just not charged to decide on the fate of those TLDs. Actually, past experience is exactly what drove us to where we are.


> 
> 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.
> 

Not only family and friends; Internet technology is now at its RFC 8269, so more than 8 thousand technical documents have been developed without paid technical advice, just the volunteer work of people willing to discuss the theme. Add to that most ICANN consensus policies (where I only remember legal advice or market research being paid for), W3C technical references and we have the overwhelming majority of technical work in the field have been developed through the way you think won't work in case. As a well-known leader once said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing".

What is clear to me is that the interests of the .home/.corp/.mail applicants would be better served by what you suggest. But since they do not align with the interests of the WT or the WG, we can't do anything about them.



Rubens







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171016/f9173232/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/20171016/f9173232/signature.asc>