Seun, you have come full-circle in this discussion. We re-opened the issue because by letting our statement stand we were sending a message that we supported the ccNSO WG report as submitted, and this support was being used as a prime rationale for not acting on SSAC advice. The ccNSO did raise the issue of other potential confusing situations. Some of those are due to ISO-3166-2 and there is little we can do about that. Some is due to what I consider really bad decisions we made in the new gTLD process, and thankfully there is a strong move to not make those mistakes again. In my mind, we cannot eliminate confusion, but we should not do things that make it worse. Alan At 28/03/2017 04:51 AM, Seun Ojedeji 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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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) 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 bbe 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 don’t understand the technical argument, or who simply don’t wa want to know), so the more non-controversial you make this statement, the better chance you have of getting them to agree. If this doesn’t gt 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 they’re worth. bsp; :-)

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 Group’s Proposed Guidelines a> 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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!