Dear Ching, Hiro, Thank you, Hiro, for clarification. I completely agree with you - the position of the ccNSO has not changed. The working party’s response to the points the Board raised clarifies some aspects of the EPSRP WG report that apparenlty were not well stressed in the document. As Hiro also pointed out, the response to the Board clarifies what the ccNSO meant with "lower-case-prevails". The registry willing to run an IDN ccTLD should be given the opportunity to propose mitigation measures after the panel (DNS Stability panel or EPSRP) finds the proposed string is confusingly similar to another string in upper case. This is the idea from the final report but now it is made more specific. As to your second question, Ching, and as Hiro already indicated, the mechanism and roles with respect to who (EPSRP, SSAC or Board) would have a final say on risk mitigation plan proposed by each individual IDN ccTLD are described in the document. The document includes a proposed amendment to the Fast Track Implementation Plan (section 4 of the response): To determine whether the proposed risk mitigation measures are adequate ICANN will consult experts in the area of relevant Risk Mitigation measures and the IDN ccTLD string requestor. The proposed measures are to be evaluated together with the finding of the confusability evaluation. So effectively, ICANN will determine whether proposed risk mitigation measures are adequate in consultation with experts and the IDN ccTLD requestor. Kind regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: hotta@jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 12:55 PM To: 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> Cc: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] DECISION NEEDED: Joint ccNSO-SSAC response to the ICANN Board Dear Chin Chiao, Thanks for asking. On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 03:48:47 +0800 喬敬 <chiao@brandma.co> wrote:
Thank you very much Katrina, Hotta-san and Wafa.
Before making the vote I am slightly unsure about the followings -- appreciate if Hotta-san or others could kindly help explain and confirm:
1. how exactly previous ccNSO's position on "lower-case-prevails" position changed/ unchanged?
ccNSO's position on "lower-case-prevails" has not been changed in the course of discussion between Working Party members.. The proposed response to the Board clarifies the meaning of "lower-case-prevails" in the CCWG EPSRP final report by itemising the cases - i.e., (a) if only lower case is found to be confusingly similar, the string should not pass (b) if only upper-case is found to be confusingly similar, the applicant will be given a chance to propose measures to mitigate the risk
2. on risk mitigation -- who (EPSRP , SSAC, or Board) would have a final say on risk mitigation plan proposed by each individual IDN ccTLD ?
This is not a question to EPSRP but to overall Fast Track process. As far as I understand, EPSRP does not have a final say, because it deals with only string similarity. SSAC does not either, because it only gives advice. I think DNS Stability Panel may be the one that decides Pass/NotPass using the information about string similarity and proposed mitigation measures. The process will be specified in the Fast Track Implementation Plan that ICANN will revise after EPSRP final report is accepted by ICANN Board. I think Katrina or Bart may correct me or give more information. Best, Hiro
Many thanks in advance for your guidance.
Best regards,
Ching
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Dear Councillors,
On our last call Hiro informed us that the EPSRP working party concluded its work and the SSAC was in the process to decide whether to adopt the paper prepared by the working party. Hiro also indicated that he would submit the final paper to chair once adopted by
SSAC.
I am pleased to inform you that Hiro has formally sent me the paper after he and I were informed that SSAC has adopted the document (included) “as is”. So now it is up to us.
According to our internal rules (https://ccnso.icann.org/ about/guidelines-council-practices-09feb17-en.pdf) and as agreed at our last call on 24 August we will take an email decision. I therefore propose the following resolution:
Proposed Resolution
Background
In its letter dated 24 April 2017, the ICANN Board of Directors noted divergent views of the SSAC and ccNSO with respect to the
following topics:
Interpretation of RFC 6912; On similarity findings, and On mitigation measures. The Board suggested the ccNSO and SSAC collaboratively arrive at conclusions on these 3 issues and requested a joint briefing to further the Board’s understanding of the topic. The ccNSO and SSAC agreed to set up a working party with two members from each group tasked to develop a common position on the 3 topics, if feasible. Both the ccNSO Council and SSAC would approve the document according to their own rules and procedures and then would send and present it to the Board. The Chair of the ccNSO and ccNSO members on the working party were informed that SSAC has adopted the Joint ccNSO SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party.
Decision.
The ccNSO Council suports the observations and recommendations of the working party and adopts the Joint ccNSO-SSAC Response to ICANN Board on EPSRP as proposed by the working party. The ccNSO Council particularly welcomes the proposed changes to section 5.6.3 of the current version of the Fast Track Implementation Plan (https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-05nov13-en.pdf ). The ccNSO Council request its Chair to inform the Chair of SSAC accordingly, and jointly submit the Joint Response. The ccNSO Council thanks and congratulates the members of the working party: Suzanne Woolf (SSAC), Jeff Bedser (SSAC), Hiro Hotta (ccNSO), Wafa Dahmani (ccNSO), for their work on the paper and for finding a common position.
According to our rules this resolution will be considered adopted if none of us raises objections by 8 September 2017 23.59 UTC or, in case at least one of us raises an objection by a majority vote.
So, please let your voice be heard on this topic, preferably as soon as possible but no later than 8 September 23.59 UTC.
Thank you!
Kindest regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国?集? www.brandma.com
+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei