Motion on IDN TLD Confusion
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
Thanks Alan Taking in mind Julie’s caution (and in a chat with Patrick, I heard the same thing) in the end, we only want to ask that the parties work on a solution. I think this statement does that Holly On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:46 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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); On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its Advisory SAC084 ( 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 <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 don̢۪t understand the technical argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn̢۪t 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 they̢۪re worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <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 Public Comment in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released 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
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I agree, Holly.. the statement actually acknowledges the arguments of both sides and asks the parties to try to come to some agreement on the best possible solution to ensure that there is no possibility of confusion and as you say, to facilitate the deployment of IDN TLDs. And of course my role is to support the ALAC POV 😊 Maureen On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Alan
Taking in mind Julie’s caution (and in a chat with Patrick, I heard the same thing) in the end, we only want to ask that the parties work on a solution. I think this statement does that
Holly On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:46 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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 <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 don̢۪t understand the technical argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn̢۪t 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 they̢۪re worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <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 Public Comment <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdf...> in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pd...> for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released SAC084 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf> 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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
I agree with the course of action. I, however, would substitute the phrase "of paramount importance" with something more moderate, like "of substantial importance" or "of great importance". My rationale comes from balancing the equities between the real possibility of confusion versus the opening up of the DNS to a multiplicity of languages and peoples (millions of new end-users), and conclude that deployment of IDNs is, from the end-user's perspective, possibly as important as the confusion issue. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 27, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
paramount importance
I actually think the wording is correct, and because the avoidance (but not necessarily elimination) of confusion is the reason that we have reopened this issue. IDNs are crucially important, but what we are saying with this motion is that we need to make sure users can rely on the Internet. But I have no problem softening it if there is a general wish to do so. Alan At 27/03/2017 06:43 PM, Javier Rua wrote:
I agree with the course of action.
I, however, would substitute the phrase "of paramount importance" with something more moderate, like "of substantial importance" or "of great importance".
My rationale comes from balancing the equities between the real possibility of confusion versus the opening up of the DNS to a multiplicity of languages and peoples (millions of new end-users), and conclude that deployment of IDNs is, from the end-user's perspective, possibly as important as the confusion issue.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
Ok. We can get the sense of the group tomorrow. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I actually think the wording is correct, and because the avoidance (but not necessarily elimination) of confusion is the reason that we have reopened this issue. IDNs are crucially important, but what we are saying with this motion is that we need to make sure users can rely on the Internet.
But I have no problem softening it if there is a general wish to do so.
Alan
At 27/03/2017 06:43 PM, Javier Rua wrote:
I agree with the course of action.
I, however, would substitute the phrase "of paramount importance" with something more moderate, like "of substantial importance" or "of great importance".
My rationale comes from balancing the equities between the real possibility of confusion versus the opening up of the DNS to a multiplicity of languages and peoples (millions of new end-users), and conclude that deployment of IDNs is, from the end-user's perspective, possibly as important as the confusion issue.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
Unfortunately I am not able to join the call, so I want to state here I too agree with the wording of the proposed motion -Bastiaan
On 28 Mar 2017, at 03:30, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok. We can get the sense of the group tomorrow.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I actually think the wording is correct, and because the avoidance (but not necessarily elimination) of confusion is the reason that we have reopened this issue. IDNs are crucially important, but what we are saying with this motion is that we need to make sure users can rely on the Internet.
But I have no problem softening it if there is a general wish to do so.
Alan
At 27/03/2017 06:43 PM, Javier Rua wrote:
I agree with the course of action.
I, however, would substitute the phrase "of paramount importance" with something more moderate, like "of substantial importance" or "of great importance".
My rationale comes from balancing the equities between the real possibility of confusion versus the opening up of the DNS to a multiplicity of languages and peoples (millions of new end-users), and conclude that deployment of IDNs is, from the end-user's perspective, possibly as important as the confusion issue.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hello Alan, I feel a quite uncomfortable with revoking the previous ALAC statement because i feel that could send a wrong signal about how important we take IDNs. During the meeting with the ccNSO, they highlighted some other instances of confusability which already exist within the gTLD which isn't seen as an issue, why this is so peculiar still alludes me. I would have preferred we add an updated statement highlighting our support for timely implementation of the IDN TLDs while noting the point raised in bullet one instead of revoking in totality. That said, I have seen that our ccNSO liaison is fine with the statement hence I will rely on her judgement on this one. Nevertheless, I would prefer that we modify the second bullet point to the following: "The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find a path forward that will not compromise the rigour of confusability evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs." My rationale for the above that I do not think this is a security and stability issue to the root. I will try to join the call for as long as possible before nature fully takes over :) @Staff kindly pen me down for dialout. Regards On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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 <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 don̢۪t understand the technical argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn̢۪t 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 they̢۪re worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <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 Public Comment <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdf...> in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pd...> for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released SAC084 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf> 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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Unfortunately Seun, I think we have to acknowledge the security and stability issue which is SSAC's key complaint. However, at the same time, Alan's statements have also considered the ccNSO viewpoint particularly in relation to mitigation measures possible via registry policy I think that rescinding the former ALAC decision recognises that we now understand the issues, but believe that the two groups with an expert intermediary working with them, can still resolve this amicably. Consulting with IDN end-users hasn't been mentioned by either party. Some don't have upper and lower cases. M On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Alan,
I feel a quite uncomfortable with revoking the previous ALAC statement because i feel that could send a wrong signal about how important we take IDNs. During the meeting with the ccNSO, they highlighted some other instances of confusability which already exist within the gTLD which isn't seen as an issue, why this is so peculiar still alludes me. I would have preferred we add an updated statement highlighting our support for timely implementation of the IDN TLDs while noting the point raised in bullet one instead of revoking in totality.
That said, I have seen that our ccNSO liaison is fine with the statement hence I will rely on her judgement on this one. Nevertheless, I would prefer that we modify the second bullet point to the following:
"The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find a path forward that will not compromise the rigour of confusability evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs."
My rationale for the above that I do not think this is a security and stability issue to the root.
I will try to join the call for as long as possible before nature fully takes over :) @Staff kindly pen me down for dialout.
Regards
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
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 <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 don̢۪t understand the technical argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn̢۪t 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 they̢۪re worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <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 Public Comment <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdf...> in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pd...> for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released SAC084 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf> 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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Dear Alan, shouldn't the IDN WG members be asked about their point of view, as they are the prime experts in this topic? Kindest regards, Olivier On 27/03/2017 23:46, Alan Greenberg wrote:
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 <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto: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 don̢۪t understand the technical argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn̢۪t 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 they̢۪re worth. :-)
Cheers, Julie
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com <mailto: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 Public Comment <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdf...> in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pd...> for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released SAC084 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf> 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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji