Dear Olivier and Holly, I believe Olivier points to the correct section in the RA (Spec 10). If the TLD is delegated and not in compliance with Spec 10, I assume ICANN compliance then will “knock on the Registry Operator door”. Maybe Holly refers to domain names under a TLD that is not resolving (correctly) on the Internet? However, it is frustrating to see the number of TLDs approved and delegated and only with nic.[tld] resolving. There may be legit reasons for this. But I am not sure how to “regulate”/prevent it. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Friday, 1 September 2023 at 12:01 To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Ready, Fire, Aim yet again.... Dear Holly, thanks for raising this. Strictly speaking according to its bylaws on of ICANN's Core Commitments is to: (i) Preserve and enhance the administration of the DNS and the operational stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness of the DNS and the Internet; Some TLDs do not resolve? Does this impact on the stability of the DNS? Are there provisions in the ICANN Registry Agreement that the TLD must resolve? I note that Specifications 10 in the Registry Agreement (REGISTRY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS) deals with DNS availability - so perhaps that's where the data, which is indeed collected and transmitted to ICANN, should be available. Kindest regards, Olivier On 01/09/2023 05:30, Holly Raiche via CPWG wrote: Folks As always, I agree with Evan and think working out a process to refine the issues the ALAC gets involved in would be a terrific step forward. (I was involved in the first discussion and noted the complete lack of response - do I become involved in a second go???) But now for another issue that I think CPWG should worry about. Heaven help us, talk of a SECOND round! I recently attended (and presented in) the APrIGF. On the sidelines, I wound up with a discussion of Ram - who was there. It started with a discussion on new gTLDs - in the context of UA. And the thought in my mind was why are we talking about a second round when so many new gTLDs don’t resolve. (the nastier question - why is ICANN pocketing money for new GTLDs if they don’t work!) This should be a particular issue for IDNs. IDNs are one thing that IS on the ALAC agenda - the firm conviction that we should be making communications on the Internet easier for the billions of people whose first language is not English. And - since one of the justifications (true or not) was to provide more gTLDs that reflect something of the actual name, why is their usability by the public not an issue? If ICANN is happy to take money for new names, should that not come with some kind of assurance/industry commitment that the new names will work? Just a thought Holly On Sep 1, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Given the short notice and unusual nature of such a travel request, I would like to suggest this timeline: 1. Have a "kickoff" in Hamburg, with me participating virtually. I would prepare for and introduce the topic during the anniversary meeting Jonathan mentioned and we would then start to assemble a working group. My preference would be for a small team, preferably of people with strong written English communications skills who have not participated in other ICANN constituencies 2. The group would communicate by email list and ad-hoc virtual meetings, reporting progress back to ALAC meetings. If human resources allow, it would be optimal for a group representative to present and take feedback at every RALO at least once. 3. The working group -- hopefully with me there in person -- would present its work early in the week of ICANN79 meeting, conducting a public workshop for last-minute fine-tuning, with the intention of ALAC endorsement at its closing meeting. 4. The working group disbands, and proposes that ALAC revisit the issue every five years. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html