December 2022 - CCPDP4-CS-SG

NOTES | ccPDP4-IDN | 20 December 2022 (14 UTC)
by Joke Braeken Dec. 20, 2022

Dec. 20, 2022

NOTES | ccPDP4-IDN | 20 December 2022 (14 UTC) 1. Welcome Welcome by Kenny 2. Administrative matters a. Action items None See item 3.b. b. Meeting GNSO EPDP Hadia: discussed inconsistencies between ccPDP4 and IDN PDP. Mentioned there is divergence, and not inconsistency. * Blocked labels * Objections, depending on how CS outcomes happen Bart: 2 questions for Hadia. 1st question * You mentioned objection. What do you mean? Hadia: something like the review Bart: procedural process questions Hadia: gnso discussed what objectors can object to. Ariel: It’s the objection process in the New gTLD Program, including string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest, and community objections Confirmed by SubPro. Already existed in the 2012 round. Bart: have more in dept conversation about this Bart: 2nd question for Hadia * You mentioned the letter from the board. consistency Bart: I recall they need to be “coordinated”, not necessarily the same. What was meant by consistent and divergent Ariel: the ICANN Board further requested that the GNSO and ccNSO keep each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution for IDN variant gTLDs and IDN variant ccTLDs. Consistent solution. Not necessarily “the same” Bart: agree. Same understanding Hadia: So I believe the two solutions are consistent but they do differ because of the difference in nature between gTLDs and ccTLDS c. Progress full group Kenny provides update See discussions from last week. Bart: regarding the Review Mechanism (RM). Refers to the RM developed by ccPDP3. The full group met on the 13th. The suggestion is to continue with the full group on 17 Jan. CS could then meet on 24 Jan. otherwise the full group would have 5 weeks between the meetings. Also, they are nearly done with the review. We will start end January with stress-testing. Possibly first week of February. The full group can work on the policy doc itself, and the full group or a subgroup can focus on the stress testing. Kenny: note that 31 January is Chinese NewYear. Bart: ok! Will check. This is a major holiday 3. Review CS document a. Updates after 2nd reading i.Comment of reference to SAC089, page 27 and footnote 15 Page 26. Bart: use of “validation”. Discussed on the last call. Evaluation should be validation as well Page 27. Replace standard for confusability with standard for visual confusing similarity Do you agree to replace the term? No red marks Jaap suggested to add a footnote to SAC089 Far more extensive concept than visual similarity. We focus on those here, and how to avoid them. Good to make this point. Do you agree? No red marks Page 35. Use of the word “valid”. Bart checked it against the FAst Track Process implementation plan. Suggestion is to keep it in, as suggested last time. Will delete the comment field. Jiankang proposed to include a person with a deep knowledge of the script which is under evaluation by the 1st panel. Similarity Evaluation Panel. Relatively small panel, and there might be a request for a string in a language, unfamiliar to the panelists. Suggestion is that either the requestor, or the panelist, could request to add such a person. No questions or comments by the group Today: just temperature of the room Q1. Do you agree to move the text to this specific section? Hadia: when is the panel formed? And for how long the same panel? Bart: That is a matter of implementation. Assumption: standing panel. Pool of panellists. The more we add here, the harder it will be to get people. Hadia: panlists are less familiar with the language or script Panelists with diverse experience and knowledge in languages and scripts Bart: extreme answer. Shows the issue at stake. Depends on the standard you are using. Approx 7000 languages, and 100s of scripts. Impossible to find someone familiar with string confusion, and the various languages. Experience under the Fast Track. 1st evaluation and the panel during the technical evaluation are the same. They need knowledge about the RFCs etc. leave it open for icann org to implement Hadia: understand. Bart: current structure still works and functions properly. Q2. timing of the request to appoint a specific panelist No red marks Hadia: duration on panel? Bart: matter for implementation You agreed with the principle. Does the sentence capture the notion that this extended panel will conduct the CS evaluation, and there is no room for misinterpretation? No red marks Finally, around duration. Typos to be corrected ii. Discussion impact of CS requested variant (page 39, 40) Into the weeds of the CS review See text marked in green. This was discussed twice. Hadia: would it include only the requested variants and the label itself? Bart: it would include the delegatable variants. (meaningful representation of the name of the territory). Proposal: in future a ccTLD manager could request the delegatable variants. They are only available for that specific string, and for the IDN ccTLD manager. Mirjana: in process of deciding what will be offered to the requestor, you have the primary string and some variants. No allocatable variants should be allowed, if there is CS. afterwards the situation is clear Bart: question here is. If you have a primary string that is CS, all the requested strings go. Now you have a selected string. Now you also requested allocatable variants. All or some are CS. if this is CS, should therefor the selected primary string be cancelled as well? Mirjana: no. Pitinan: in this case we consider it a sub-case for now. First case where panelist has already been delegated. Other subcase. (inaudible) 2 subcases: * Primary string is known * Primary string has already been delegated Bart: difference? Pitinan: not sure yet. Line of thinking. Bart: could be confusing. Decision tree. Hadia: agrees with Pitinan. 2 categories * Existing strings * Non-existing strings. Easy. applicant could apply for primary string, and all delegatbale strings. Should not be too many. In that case we could say if the variant tld is CS, the whole application is dismissed. Bart: push back on what was agreed before? Allow end-users more choice. It introduces risks. You try to mitigate the risks. Dis-allow something that is allowable? Ai-chin: In my opinion,They belong to the same variant set, right? So if either one leads to confusing similarities, the other variant doesn't get through. Hadia: switch primary as variant Bart: but then they would need to re-apply Mirjana: variants should be blocked that did not pass confusability. Cannot be registered. The new request for primary strings is coming. Should be tested against all allocatable, all previous strings which were in the process. Bart: clear process Ai-chin: AA belongs to the same variant set. Other variant cannot pass. Bart: to be revisited Q. selected string should pass, no matter the status of the variants. If you agree, check green marks. Ai-Chin: comment Bart: what would you do, if you have an idn cctld string. Because of the policy, yopu will request a variant string, which meets all the criteria. If one of those variants would not pass, would you invalidate the existing TLD? Ai-Chin: if you applied, you cannot pass. Bart: but if it is an existing string, and it does not have variants. Would it impact the existing TLD? Ai-Chin: the requested string cannot pass. Bart: should the existing TLD be deleted or retired, because the variant you want did not pass? Ai-Chin: needs to think about it Bart: to be revisited. Comments from Mirjana and Ai-chin to be addressed at the next call. Mirjana: no time today to discuss. Please defer to next meeting iii. Inclusion expansion SEP, page 36 b. Discussion scope base for comparison Mirjana’s note (page 28) 4. First reading consolidated document 5. Next meeting a. Full group | 17 Jan (14 UTC) b. CS subgroup | 24 Jan (14 UTC) Kenny: schedule might need to be revisited due to Chinese New Year. to be continued Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org

1 0

ccPDP4-IDN (CS) #14 on on Tuesday, 20 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken Dec. 20, 2022

Dec. 20, 2022

Dear All, Notes during today’s ccPDP4-meeting will be taken here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g7BSUoCN5evPOEaXREjEUtmIhcnpyM-Bz2KRS6T… The ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (14) will be held on Tuesday, 20 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: [Ext] FW: Why blocked variants should be tested for confusing similarity
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 17, 2022

Dec. 17, 2022

Forwarded on behalf of Mirjana: Hello all. As Bart asked me to provide some thoughts which point to the fact that in confusing similarity process blocked variants should be incuded here is one example from Latin script. Regards Mirjana ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cofusability between Latin small letter F and Latin small letter T with hook Proposed label in Latin script oƒu (006F 0192 0075) Latin small letter F with hook has Latin in-script variant ofu (006F 0066 0075) Latin small letter F which is blocked. According to Latin GP proposal there is one Latin script glyph which is considered similar to Latin small lettet F glyph “f”, it is Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ”. The same glyph Latin small letter T with hook “ƭ” was not considered to be similar to Latin small letter F with hook “ƒ”. This similarity consideration produces following confusable label. oƭu (006F 01AD 0075) Latin small letter T with hook It means that, if someone wants to apply for label “oƭu”, that application should be refused because of confusability issue with label “ofu” which is blocked variant of already registered label “oƒu”. There might be similar confusions in other scripts which are more complex than Latin one. Everyone should be aware that Latin script Confusability table is side product of main task. It means that the list of Visually Confusable glyphs is neither comprehensive nor definitive.

2 1

Draft agenda meeting 20 December 2022- and update Consolidated document
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 16, 2022

Dec. 16, 2022

Dera all Please find included: * Draft agenda upcoming meeting ( 20 December 16, 2022 * Mirjana’s note on scope base for comparison * Consolidated updated version document Kind regards, Bart Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Admin items, if any a. Action Items b. Meeting GNSO EPDP c. Progress Full group 1. Review of CS Document a. Updates of doc after 2nd reading * Comment inclusion of reference to SAC089, page 27 and footnote 15 * Discussion impact of confusing similarity Requested variant (page 39,40) * Inclusion of expansion of the SEP, page 36 * Discussion scope base for comparison Mirjana’s note (page 28) 1. First reading consolidated document 2. Next meetings a. CS Subgroup | 20 December 2022 @14:00 UTC b. Full Group | 17 January 2022 @ 14.00 UTC c. CS Subgroup | 24 January 2022 @ 14.00 UTC

1 0

ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (14) | 20 December at 14:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 7, 2022

Dec. 7, 2022

Dear all, The ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (14) will be 20 December at 14:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/96662611353?pwd=MGVmNHpYZlFkSXJIVmpId0Y3ZFdvUT09 Meeting ID: 966 6261 1353 Passcode: PDP4-CS#14 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/AoU-DQ

1 0

NOTES | ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) 6 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC.
by Joke Braeken Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

NOTES | ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) 6 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC. 1. Welcome Welcome by full WG Chair Kenny 2. Admin items, if any a. Action Items Bart: all completed b. Meeting GNSO EPDP Kenny: most likely another joint meeting before ICANN76. Once a proposal is in a more final state. Bart: question by Donna, whether the members of the EPDP could participate in the full group scenario testing. c. Progress Full group Chair Anil takes over from Kenny Met 2 weeks ago. Add the work of the subgroups, and also the work by ccPDP3-RM. To be completed by ICANN76. Bart: regarding RM, some sections need a 2nd reading. Check also whether there are decisions that should be subject to a review Anil: RM is important. All, please join the full WG meeting on 13 December 3. Review of CS Document a. Updates of doc after 2nd reading 1. Comment inclusion of reference to SAC089, page 3 Bart: response to SSAC84. FTP, EPSR ccNSO suggested a change, which went through public comment. SSAC084 as response to public comment. Official way at the time, only way the SSAC could submit a public comment. Intense discussions between SSAC and ccNSO following that. Original proposal was rescinded as a result of these discussions. Both formed a joint working party which developed the risk mitigation appraisal procedure. Relevant sections in SAAC089. But overtaken in time. Unwise to overtake one remark from a document. Given the specific context and the proposed changes to the FTP, suggested is not to include a reference to SAC089. Sarmad: I suggested this pointer. Please allow me to explain why. From chat: “Confusability is a Security Concern Confusability cannot be considered in isolation from other issues related to security. Phishing and other social engineering attacks based on domain name confusion are a security problem for end users.2 As such, adding a label to the root zone that is potentially confusable violates the Inclusion Principle’s requirement that a TLD label be known to be ‘safe’.” Good reference point to share why string similarity and confusability are so important as part of the process. Add more support to it. Jaap: Sarmad cited from SAC088. That is where it comes from. Does not make sense to add it Bart: do you wish to add a reference to SAC089? 3 red marks, 1 green (by Anil) Anil: SAC089 is being used, and related to the stability of the DNS. Does not feel strong about inclusion Bart: let’s leave it open for the time being, and bring it to the full WG. keep the reference for the time being. Explain there is a mild preference by some, opposition by others. Kenny and Anil agree 2. Comment re use of word ‘VALID” in the text, page 6 Bart: used in FTP, and checked various dictionaries. Suggest to keep the language Green marks in zoom, no red marks >>> page 9 No concerns raised. No red marks Sarmad: see 2nd question. Clarification. What is suggested that is the primary label is not found confusing, and one of its variants is found confusing with another TLD (more likely gTLD) Bart: why more likely? By definition country names are excluded. Meaningful representation. Has to be the name of the country Sarmad: in case it is found confusingly similar - taken it is a rare scenario - assuming there is a population that think that those 2 variants (ccTLD primary string and the confusingly similar string), are similar enough to be almost the same. Also, there is a community which thinks the variant of the primary is the same. Bart: I am confused. Why requesting a string, by requesting a delegatable variant, you may cause that your primary or selected string is not delegated or not valid. Sarmad: recommendation in the staff report is based on the allocatable variants. Bart: it has a lot of implications by limiting the number to allocatable variants. Sarmad: we do not want a situation with 2 TLDs delegated, which are considered similar by a population of users. It will hurt both the existing and the new TLD. phishing risk. Bart: do you still support scenario 2 as proposed? 2 red marks Mirjana: scenario could be mentioned somewhere in our doc. We need to think how to resolve this loop. Kenny: need more time 3. Inclusion of expansion of the SEP, page 13,14 Bart: see suggestion by Jiankang. Evaluation panel Sarmad: as part of the 1st step, a separate panel is being created. Or 3 people to extend the panel? Bart: slight adjustment of the language in FTP. at least 3 member panel. DNS stability panel. Sarmad: 3 plus 3? Bart: no. if there is more people, ensure there is at least one person with knowledge of the script Extended panel will include at least 1 person with deep knowledge Anil: fundamental question. Requester has any option for suggesting a name in the panel? Or is it icann org? Bart: icann org contracts the panel. Has to be independent. Appointed by ICANN. External panelists. No matter the size, at least one person with knowledge. Bart: do you agree with the proposed way of handling? Sarmad: panel may suggest the same, even if the requester does not ask Bart: yes. Line 3 and 4 on page 14 Sarmad: ok Bart: do you agree (not with language), with the approach? No red marks Bart: before stability panel has reached its conclusion. Bart summarises: revisit 2nd scenario on CS. Revisit the panel bit. Full group to revisit SAC089 b. Review of Open issues around invalid variants (second reading),page 8 4. Introduction Basic with inclusion of CS (to be circulated closer to the meeting) Bart: no real change in language. Wants to show how it is included. Main section is section 4. Page 25. Still to discuss whether or not to include blocked variants in the comparison Bart asks Mirjana to explain why it needs to be included, in the next few weeks. Mirjana: likes the proposal discussed with GNSO group. Yes, gives live example in written soon. Bart: do you like the structure of the doc? No concerns by the group 5. Next meetings CS Subgroup | 20 December 2022 @14:00 UTC Full Group| 13 December 2020 @14.00 UTC 5. AOB none 6. Adjourn Thank you all. bye Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [CCPDP4-CS-SG] REMINDER: ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) | 6 December at 14:00 UTC
by Joke Braeken Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

Dear All, Notes today will be taken here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iKzIasJ03sN-E8OmdpGp7JwaD92y1GpoIojH3qJ… Best regards. Joke Braeken joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> From: CCPDP4-CS-SG <ccpdp4-cs-sg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 1 December 2022 at 20:37 To: "ccpdp4-cs-sg(a)icann.org" <ccpdp4-cs-sg(a)icann.org> Subject: [CCPDP4-CS-SG] REMINDER: ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) | 6 December at 14:00 UTC Dear all, As a reminder, the next ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) will be 6 December at 14:00 UTC. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Admin items, if any a. Action Items b. Meeting GNSO EPDP c. Progress Full group 1. Review of CS Document a. Updates of doc after 2nd reading * Comment inclusion of reference to SAC089, page 3 * Comment re use of word ‘VALID” in the text, page 6 * Inclusion of expansion of the SEP, page 13,14 b. Review of Open issues around invalid variants (second reading),page 8 1. Introduction Basic with inclusion of CS (to be circulated closer to the meeting) 2. Next meetings a. CS Subgroup | 20 December 2022 @14:00 UTC b. Full Group| 13 December 2020 @14.00 UTC 1. AOB 2. Adjourn Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/97082606327?pwd=V0FnNEozUzJTV2JsYjc3bFprMTJoQT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97082606327?pwd=V0FnNEoz…> Meeting ID: 970 8260 6327 Passcode: PDP4-CS#13 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/8oQ-DQ

1 0

ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) | 6 December at 14:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 6, 2022

Dec. 6, 2022

**STARTING IN ONE HOUR*** Dear all, The ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) will be 6 December at 14:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated prior to the call. Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/97082606327?pwd=V0FnNEozUzJTV2JsYjc3bFprMTJoQT09 Meeting ID: 970 8260 6327 Passcode: PDP4-CS#13 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/8oQ-DQ

1 0

REMINDER: ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) | 6 December at 14:00 UTC
by Kimberly Carlson Dec. 5, 2022

Dec. 5, 2022

Dear all, As a reminder, the next ccPDP4 Confusing Similarities SG teleconference (13) will be 6 December at 14:00 UTC. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Admin items, if any a. Action Items b. Meeting GNSO EPDP c. Progress Full group 1. Review of CS Document a. Updates of doc after 2nd reading * Comment inclusion of reference to SAC089, page 3 * Comment re use of word ‘VALID” in the text, page 6 * Inclusion of expansion of the SEP, page 13,14 b. Review of Open issues around invalid variants (second reading),page 8 1. Introduction Basic with inclusion of CS (to be circulated closer to the meeting) 2. Next meetings a. CS Subgroup | 20 December 2022 @14:00 UTC b. Full Group| 13 December 2020 @14.00 UTC 1. AOB 2. Adjourn Please find the call details below: Join Zoom Meeting https://icann.zoom.us/j/97082606327?pwd=V0FnNEozUzJTV2JsYjc3bFprMTJoQT09 Meeting ID: 970 8260 6327 Passcode: PDP4-CS#13 Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/8oQ-DQ

1 1