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

Mon Oct 16 19:36:01 UTC 2017

Rubens and Cheryl,

In addition to my request for independent paid technical advice as to the proposed Name Collision Framework and the 4 categories of TLDs (rated as to namespace collision risk from DO NOT APPLY to low, medium, and high risk) that are being proposed in Work Track 4 of Sub Pro, I would like to confirm with the Co-Chairs of Work Track 4 that the proposed Name Collision Framework was forwarded to ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee for comment.

I believe the SSAC recommended the “DO NOT APPLY” Category in one of their reports to the Board.  (SSAC 90?)  We should be seeking SSAC input on the rest of the Framework in the same manner as we did with IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC.  But perhaps this was already done back in August when we sought the advice of IETF/IAB (as recommended by SSAC), and RIPE and DNS-OARC?

A link to a summary you sent out to RIPE in August appears here:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2017-August/003448.html

Did we send this to SSAC for input?

My general points are

(1)    Work Track 4 should be consulting SSAC on a new Name Collision Framework in addition to IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC and

(2)     We should have independent paid technical advice on the proposed four categories of risk for a TLD, and should know what categories .home, .corp., and .mail fall in so that past experience informs future policy.

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

[cid:image002.png at 01D3467B.52A170F0]

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: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:29 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: avri doria; 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
Importance: High

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

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

________________________________

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/20171016/25817dbd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6496 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171016/25817dbd/image002-0001.png>