In Copenhagen, we decided that subject to final wording, we would revisit our earlier decision. I propose the following motion which I think fully matches our discvussion. We will discuss it on the ALAC call tomorrow, and either vote on it during the call of via an online vote to start following the call. Alan =========================== Whereas: * The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user confusion in the use of domain names is of paramount importance; * The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be expedited; * On 24 August 2016, the ALAC issued Statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN supporting the recommendations of the ccNSO Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group (see <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw); * On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its Advisory SAC084 (<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf) raising security and stability concerns based on potential user confusability with the proposed process; * During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with both the SSAC and the ccNSO to discuss the issue; * The ALAC was made aware of a possible methodology to resolve the issue specifically, accept that at two character IDN string may be confusingly similar in its own right, but that the impact on end-users could be mitigated by registry policy; * If such mitigation is committed to by the registry and is considered as part of the evaluation process, the issue of user confusion can be reduced; Therefore: * The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN. * The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find a path forward that will not compromise security and stability or the rigour of confusability evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs. At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Understand you know thhe community better than me. And I thought there was more than Wafa, but good if that is not the case.
Cheers, Julie
On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Actually, probably the other way around. Since out discussion focused on mitigation, not mentioning that may trigger some concern. In any case, I think the only holdout will be Wafa, and I will do use back-channels to make sure that Maureen, Andrei and Javier are ok. But if there is any pus-hback, you we will talk.
Alan
At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Hi Alan,
I have been thinking about this a little further after our brief chat on Thursday after I showed it to you. You were considering saying a little more than I have drafted below, but I think it may be prudent to keep the statement minimalist, as I have tried to do in this draft. My thinking is that you want to get this through the vote, and the more you put in it, the more opportunity there is for ALAC Members to either disagree or try to wordsmith. You already know that you have a few who wish to support the ccNSO position (who perhaps donât understand the technical argument, or who simply donât want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesnât get through, then that would be a really big win for the ccNSO and they may well try to capitalize on it. That in turn may seriously complicate the delicate discussions that are continuing between them, the Board and the SSAC.
Just my thoughts, for what theyâre worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>julie.hammer@bigpond.com > wrote:
Hi Alan,
Just some words to think about, should you feel they are appropriate:
Extended Process Similarity Review Panel
On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdfxwOqgb7q8n.pdf>Public Comment in support of the ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pdf>EPSRP Working Groupâs Proposed Guidelines for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>SAC084 highlighting security and stability concerns with the proposed process based on user confusability. Taking into consideration the ongoing discussions between the ICANN Board, the ccNSO and the SSAC to resolve these different views, the ALAC wishes to withdraw its earlier expression of support and reserve its judgement on this issue until these differences are resolved.
Cheers, Julie