URGENT: SAC084 SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314), a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Hi Everyone,
SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents with the file at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf. It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg00002.html>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg00002.html.
In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these principles is critical for the continued interoperability and stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone.
The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability.
For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report.
Cheers, Julie
Alan and Colleagues, The timing on this has been unfortunate in that, not having been a member of this SSAC Work Party, the first time I saw the draft report was after the ALAC Vote on its statement had commenced. Receiving the comments and input of the whole SSAC and updating/finalising the SSAC Statement according to our internal processes subsequently took until a couple of days ago. Apologies that I could not provide earlier advice. Julie On 2 Sep 2016, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314>), a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Hi Everyone,
SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at:https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> with the file at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf> . It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg... <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg...> .
In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these principles is critical for the continued interoperability and stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone.
The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not <> accept the proposed guidelines for the EPSRP <>, as those guidelines represent a threat to the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the principles of conservativism <>, inclusion, and stability.
For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report.
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...)
Thanks any way Jullie. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hammer <juliehammer@me.com> Date: Friday, September 2, 2016 at 1:34 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: SAC084 SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Alan and Colleagues, The timing on this has been unfortunate in that, not having been a member of this SSAC Work Party, the first time I saw the draft report was after the ALAC Vote on its statement had commenced. Receiving the comments and input of the whole SSAC and updating/finalising the SSAC Statement according to our internal processes subsequently took until a couple of days ago. Apologies that I could not provide earlier advice. Julie On 2 Sep 2016, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314), a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote: Hi Everyone, SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents with the file at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf . It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg... . In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these principles is critical for the continued interoperability and stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone. The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability. For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report. Cheers, Julie _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)
For me personally, I am inclined to go along with the SSAC. May - even at this late stage, we can still support the facilitation of ICD ccTLDs, but in a way that the SSAC advises does not represent a threat to the security and stability to the DNS, and strongly suggest that the parties work together towards the creation of IDC ccTLDs that are not a threat Holly On 2 Sep 2016, at 2:20 pm, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314), a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept.
In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable.
I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board.
Alan
At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Hi Everyone,
SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents with the file at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf . It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/msg... .
In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these principles is critical for the continued interoperability and stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone.
The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability.
For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report.
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...)
Hi! I can only recall the issue with Bulgarian idn cctld .бг which took years to resolve due to its similarity. Having formal extended process, like EPSRP would make applicant's life easier. .бг did not crash the stability or security of DNS. --andrei пятница, 2 сентября 2016 г. пользователь Alan Greenberg написал:
The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314), a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept.
In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable.
I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board.
Alan
At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote:
Hi Everyone,
SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: https://www.icann.org/groups/ ssac/documents with the file at https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf . It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp- guidelines-20jul16/msg00002.html .
In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these principles is critical for the continued interoperability and stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone.
The Report recommends that the ICANN Board *not* accept the proposed guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability.
For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report.
Cheers, Julie
-- -- {ak}
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Holly Raiche -
Julie Hammer -
Vanda Scartezini