September 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 29 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 29 September 1. Update from WG Activities Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: · Sent a letter to GNSO Council on Board letter to the Council on whether we could bifurcate some matters and launching in parallel a new round. We notified the Council that we did not come to consensus. The GNSO Council will discuss today, 29 September. · Each Work Tracks have started on substantive matters and items to give to staff to research. 2. Brief Review of Meeting #2 and any action items Discussion Notes: Cheryl Langdon-Orr: · First thing: generate outreach questions SOs/ACs, GNSO SGs and Cs. A number of different work tracks are hoping to have outreach questions, so helpful if there could be one coordinated letter. However, our questions need to go early in the process and if there is undue delay from other Work Track Sub Teams it shouldn't hold us up. · Look at other drafting as response to the action items from our last meeting: Steve Chan: · Staff reached out to internal colleagues re: score cards and to the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG). · Helpful to have specific questions for GDD and UASG. Need to understand the scope that we want to ask. · UASG noted that their work is generally outward facing, but willing to participate, but specific questions would be helpful. Jeff Neuman: · Did the questions asked of the applicants provide the information that the evaluators were looking for -- probably note as there were clarifying questions. · Need guidance on how can we revise the questions to avoid having to go back with clarifying questions? · How can we assist future evaluators and make the process more streamlined? · Don't have enough information about the process to ask specific questions. Rubens Kuhl: · The initiate questions were public, but when clarifying questions were issued they were not published. · There is a lot of information that could be used to improve the process. Steve Chan: ICANN staff did release a number of Applicant Advisories in regards to problematic questions -- something that we can work with in the interim. 3. Discussion of Specific Questions for JAS Advisors Action Item: Rubens Kuhl will put the questions into a Google Doc. Discussion Notes: Rubens Kuhl: Possible outreach to JAS Advisors -- role in quality control, back up evaluator, framework for name collisions. Here are draft questions: Application Quality Control · “In your role of quality control for the 2012-round application evaluation, what suggestions you have for improving the application process that you would like the community to consider ?” Name Collisions · “In your role of developing the framework and analysis to respond for the namespace collisions issue, what general guidance would you like the community to consider for the next round ?” · “Among the 3 strings not recommended to move forward (.home, .corp and .mail), we can classify them in two groups: ones without much dotless queries (.home and .corp) and one with prevalence of dotless queries (.mail). Considering dotless operation is forbidden in gTLDs, could you clarify why the later group presented a collision risk as well ?” · “Were there non-applied for strings that would fall into one of those two risk profiles that would be suggested to not be allowed for the time being in subsequent new gTLD procedures ?” Rubens Kuhl: DNS Stability Review looked at IDNs. There were no language generation rules at that time. Name collisions were not part of that. 4. Specific Outreach Questions Action Items: 1. Sub Team members should think up and propose additional questions. But we don’t want to create the world's longest survey. Need to make it easy. Use letter approach to UASG and survey approach for community questions. 2. CLO and Rubens: Put into Google Forms as a collaborative tool in comment mode. Principle B; Recommendation 18; Principles D, E and F; Recommendations 4, 7, and 8; General 1. Consider how to encourage adoption of gTLDs. · Internationalized Domain Names and Universal Acceptance – Coordinate with UASG Questions to pose. 2. Evaluate whether rules around IDNs properly accounted for recommendations from IDN WG. 3. Determine and address policy guidance needed for the implementation of IDN variant TLDs. · Security and Stability: a. Were the proper questions asked to minimize the risk to the DNS and ensure that applicants will be able to meet their obligations in the registry agreement? b. Should there be non-scored questions and if so, how should they be presented? c. Were the proper criteria established to avoid causing technical instability? d. Is the impact to the DNS from new gTLDs fully understood? Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational and Financial: · Were Financial and Technical criteria designed properly to allow applicants to demonstrate their capabilities while allowing evaluators to validate their capabilities? a. How can the criteria be streamlined and made clearer? Rubens Kuhl: Just noting that most of these are very open-ended so we'll probably get answers that go in opposite directions or answer different things. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: · Look for example "Consider how to encourage adoption of gTLDs" -- ideal to ask the respondent to react to a statement with a scale of 1-7 avoiding neutrality. Same could apply to other issues. · Could use Google Forms. Also for a matrix response -- pose a set of statements that could be the antithesis of what you are asking. Could use survey-style materials. Jeff Neuman – Additional Questions: 1. On IDNs: Should we allow single character IDN in nthose languages where a single character an denote a full word or phrase? (eg., Chinese, Japanese Korean)? 2. Should IDNs continue to be prioritized over AScII applications as was done in the 2012 round? 3. Should applicants be required to DEMONSTRATE their ability to meet the technical requirements prior to an application being accepted (as opposed to afterwards through PDT testing)? 4. If yes to above, is there even a need to have "predelegation testing" 5. If there is a pre-approval process for RSPs, what questions would need to be asked of applicants in that pre-approval process vs. what is asked in the application process itself? 6. Should there be a question asked of RSPs that asks about the number of TlDs that they currently support or will support in the future? And if so, how should that play into the evaluation (in terms of scale) Rubens Kuhl: 2012-round prevented IDN Variant TLDs to be delegated, even for the same registry operator. This WT will have to look into whether this is still should be the policy, or if it is to be changed, what policy would need to apply to such variants (such as .quebec and .québec), like a TLD bundling (like what is done with variant IDNs SLDs in some TLDs, or like what is done with .ngo and .ong on a TLD level), or they could exist free of any agreement-imposed restriction (even though registry policy could specify similar restrictions). 5. Next Call: 13 October at 0300 UTC.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 September 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held onThursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/xBWsAw Jeff Neuman: We have to all stop meeting like this avri: i used up my daily allotment of patience and politeness in that meeting, so better be quiet in this one. Julie Hedlund: I am hearing static -- is anyone else? Rubens Kuhl: Be careful what you wish for... Julie Hedlund: Now it has stopped. Emily Barabas: Everyone should be able to scroll through the slides themselves Emily Barabas: Following Cheryl's request, staff will control the slides. Thanks all! avri: Jeff Terri Agnew: @jeff, plese check mute Rubens Kuhl: We can move on and then circle back to this item. Emily Barabas: yes Rubens Kuhl: Yes Jeff. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes Charles Guarino: Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yeah! Rubens Kuhl: Yup! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Next slide Terri avri: some of us are meeting multiple times each week Rubens Kuhl: Or we could file a DIDP... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): next slide Terri Steve Chan: Available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories Rubens Kuhl: As an applicant, I can say that some advisories make it clearer and some make it worse. ;-) Nathaniel Edwards: Where are you getting the data on the dotless queries? Nathaniel Edwards: Understood, thanks. Steve Chan: DNS Stability Review Jeff Neuman: yes thanks Jeff Neuman: I think that test ccan be enhanced to look at namcollision risk Jeff Neuman: Questions: On IDNs: Should we allow single character IDN in nthose languages where a single character an denote a full word or phrase? (eg., Chinese, Japanese Korean) Jeff Neuman: Question: Should IDNs continue to be prioritized over AScII applications as was done in the 2012 round? Jeff Neuman: Question: Should applicants be required to DEMONSTRATE their ability to meet the technical requirements prior to an application being accepted (as opposed to afterwards through PDT testing) Steve Chan: Is the audio choppy for anyone else? Jeff Neuman: Question: If yes to above, is there even a need to have "predelegation testing" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: If there is a Jeff Neuman: oops Rubens Kuhl: Will do. Julie Hedlund: @Rubens: I was not able to capture most of what you said -- sorry! Jeff Neuman: QUestion: "If there is a pre-approval process for RSPs, what questions would need to be asked of applicants in that pre-approval process vs. what is asked in the application process itself" Jeff Neuman: Should there be a question asked of RSPs that asks about the number of TlDs that they currently support or will support in the future? And if so, how should that play into the evaluation (in terms of scale) Jeff Neuman: Its therauetuc Terri Agnew: The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC.

1 0

Agenda for this week call #3
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 28, 2016

Sept. 28, 2016

AGENDA SubPro WT 4: IDN / Technical / Operations Meeting #3 2000 UTC 29 September 2016 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/zkpbrbr Adobe Connect room(NEW): https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ 1. Welcome 2. Opening Remarks 3. Call Administration 4. Any update from WG activities 5. Brief Review of Meeting #2 and any AI's 6. Specific Outreach Questions 7. AOB 8. Review of any Action Items We welcome you all to join us on this call. Rubens and Cheryl

1 0

Namespace collisions
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Hi all. During our WT4 meeting today, Cheryl mentioned that the topic currently under consideration for having a detached team looking into it is namespace collisions; in order for WT members to have a better understanding of what's involved in this topic, I've gathered reference materials from different views and moments of the reasoning that ended-up with the controlled interruption mechanism. There is no need to rush in reading the thousands of pages and seeing the hours of videos linked here, but exactly due to the volume and technical deepness of this topic I thought a head start would favor either the discussions or the decision to not engage in this topic. Best, Rubens Interisle report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf JAS Advisors Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-final… SSAC reports: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-045-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-057-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-062-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-066-en.pdf New gTLD applicants comments: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-05aug13/pdfOPzpyE9PtF… https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-26feb14/pdfE89TaUkJlR… https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/kuhl-to-namazi-12jun14… TLD Security Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_VUgfT3UE&index=5&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZT1GfhZcEE&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22Ro6XtLkw… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs7abO6IoGQ&list=PLWvDpnCcem1PGSd22Ro6XtLkw… Verisign: http://namecollisions.net/program/index.html (this workshop consolidates what Verisign previously published on this topic) http://www.verisign.com/assets/labs/Measuring-the-Leakage-of-Onion-at-the-R… http://www.verisign.com/assets/labs/MitM-Attack-by-Name-Collision-Cause-Ana… US Cert advisory: https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA16-144A ICANN Staff: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 15 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 September 1. Working Methods Action Items: 1. Schedule fortnightly meetings for 60 minutes and rotate at 0300, 1500, and 2000 on Thursdays. 2. Sub Team members should review the Work Track 4 wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781. 3. Use Google Docs for collaboration. 4. When doing a consensus call extend it for two meetings. Discussion Notes: · Fortnightly meeting, but can increase frequency as needed. Stay with that schedule for now. · Call timing is 60 minutes, rotated at 0300, 1500, 2000 UTC. Stay with this rotation for now. · Mailing list for the Sub Team, separate from the full WG list. · Wiki for the Sub Team. Encourage Sub Team members to review the wiki. Sub Team members can post comments to the wiki. · Collaboration tools: Use Google Docs. Can also do polls through Doodle. · Consensus calls, use online tools with confirmation on two calls. · How to operate? Team of only 21. Conduct all work in the Sub Team as a whole. Can break into smaller groups. · Look at prioritizing items and decide whether to run in parallel. · Use pen holders/strawperson docs. 2. Work Items/Tasks Action Items: 1. Staff can inquire about the JAS availability, but need to know specifically what we are asking. 2. Cheryl Langdon-Orr proposes creating a table with each of clarifying questions (see Discussion Notes below) to make sure the Sub Group has answered them. Discussion Notes: · Internationalized Domain Names. · Universal Acceptance: Coordinate with the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG). · Security and Stability: Stability review, registry services review. Consider whether registry services offered might adversely affect security and stability. · Applicant Guidebook: Technical, operational, financial -- Look at whether this information should be required at application time. · Name Collisions: Review findings of Final Report. Determine whether any changes should be recommended. Check with JAS advisors. · Consider the check list/score cards that were used generally and clarifying questions that were asked. But clarifying questions were not published, so that was a lack of transparency. · Should we review the applications that failed evaluation and assess whether the threshold used was at the right level? Or if they didn't fail was the threshold too low? · We can ask for the actual scoring guidelines that the evaluators used and the list of clarifying questions that were asked. If everyone was asked the same questions, then perhaps the questions need to be updated in the Guidebook 4. Schedule of Work / Grouping of Issues Action Items: 1. The Sub Team will need to draft requests for input from the communities of interest -- SOs and ACs, constituencies, etc. -- on some of these topics. These requests will be handled through Jeff and Avri. Staff will start a Google Doc. 2. Staff will reach out to see if there is someone from the UASG group who can join the next call. 3. Cheryl and Rubens will provide questions, which staff will use to inquire about score carding, etc. Discussion Notes: · These items can run in parallel, possibly with a staggered start in the coming weeks. · In parallel, need to reach out to the USAG, inform them of our work and ask if one of them would like to brief us at a future call. · Start Applicant Guidebook work early, possibly in parallel. · Rubens: Some items from the full WG consultation may be relevant and need to be considered. These questions do not need to be asked again in the Sub Group. · Issue of name collisions can be handled later as there are dependencies. Possible sub-group of the Sub Team could take on this work and draft initial documentation. This will be discussed further later.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC.
by Terri Agnew Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 15 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 15 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/whWsAw Terri Agnew:at this time everyone can scroll the slides themselves Emily Barabas:loud and clear! Rubens Kuhl:Hearing you fine here Cheryl. Terri Agnew:change of plans, hosts will turn slides Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Ruben Martin Sutton:Sorry for my late arrival, just returned from a business trip. Terri Agnew:Welcome Martn Martin Sutton:Prefer to stay as is for now Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:No - seems good Terri Agnew:currently the next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Rotation is fair and as Cherly says pain is shared Martin Sutton:Agree also, only fair Quoc Pham, Neustar:No complaints from me, decent timing for the Australians Rubens Kuhl:Note that WT leadership is also 11 hours apart, so it's also sunny if you want to discuss WT themes with one of the co-chairs... Rubens Kuhl:(always sunny) Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:That isfine (some companies may not be able to use Google Docs) Martin Sutton:Rubens has hand raised Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Doodle - seems popular Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Semms reasonable Rubens, as people cannot always make calls so an alternaive is great to have Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:*Seems Martin Sutton:Based on size of group we could vote via email or create polls Martin Sutton:don't really mind Jeff Neuman:Online tools with confirmations on calls Jeff Neuman:? Steve Chan:And channelling Avri, confirmed on two calls? Steve Chan:No one can realllly channel Avri... Martin Sutton:Sounds very practicable Rubens Kuhl:+1 Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Martin Martin Sutton:Sounds really good and clear, thank you Cheryl Terri Agnew:The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Jeff Neuman:Should also talk to the JAS Advisors to get their input Steve Chan:Staff can inquire about their availability generally Steve Chan:JAS Advisors, yes. Steve Chan:But we'll of course need to know specifcally what we are asking Martin Sutton:Should we rview the applications that failed evaluation and assess whether the threshold used was at the right level? Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:You got muffeled at the end there Jeff Jeff Neuman:Sorry.....WE can ask for the actual scoring guidelines that the evaluators used and the list of clarifying questions that were asked. If everyone was asked the same questions, then perhaps the questions need to be updated in the Guidebook Martin Sutton:True Rubens Kuhl:Chat is very good when talking would wake up my toddler at night... Terri Agnew:Track 4 workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/HQSbAw Jeff Neuman:yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks all - have a great evening / morning etc Martin Sutton:Thanks, good call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for Niw THANK everyone

1 0

Agenda for this weeks call #2
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

AGENDA SubPro WT 4: IDN / Technical / Operations Meeting #2 1500 UTC 15 September 2016 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/j8tlfc3 Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ 1. Welcome 2. Opening Remarks 3. Call Administration 4. Any update from WG activities 5. Working Methods 6. Work Items / Tasks 7. Schedule of Work / Grouping of Issues 8. AOB 9. Review of any Action Items We welcome you all to join us on this call. Rubens and Cheryl

1 0