October 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Thanks for clarifying that Kristina. The home page for the DNS-OARC does not make a distinction as to the particular entity: https://www.dns-oarc.net/ Nevertheless, mentioning applicants for a frozen TLD was apparently a major “faux pas” on my part and I apologize. To be clear, I personally have a very high regard for both Amazon and Google and their representatives at ICANN and believe they operate at the highest level of integrity. I only mentioned this funding status because several have commented that any new name collision framework could also be applied to applications that were not permitted to go forward in 2012 due to name collision issues. The Board received a letter from some other applicants about this back in August of 2016: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/home-registry-inc-et-a… The Board responded as follows to that letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-regist… So it’s easy to see why the Board would want to consider applying the new Name Collision Framework recommended by the GNSO Sub Pro PDP (and presumably to be adopted by the GNSO in a recommendation to the Board) to 2012 round applications that are frozen and still pending (per the public record). For anyone in the subgroup who does not know, the current status of .home, .corp, and .mail is listed at the ICANN website as “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. Please see public records pasted below. For existing Framework provisions discussing why these names are frozen, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul1… ). Once again, I would recommend that the subgroup contract for paid independent technical advice on the proposed new name collision framework as was the case in connection with the names that were frozen in the 2012 round. I do not know why we are further delaying in this regard, especially since we apparently want to adopt three categories of risk – low, medium, and high. This will definitely require professional, paid, and independent technical advice in my opinion. [cid:image005.png@01D34384.71E0AC50] [cid:image003.png@01D34385.3B55DAB0] [cid:image001.png@01D3437B.B6A26210] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image007.png@01D3438F.68770050] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:rosettek@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:36 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 For the record, neither Amazon EU Sarl (the applicant for .MAIL) nor Amazon Registry Services, Inc. (the Registry Operator) is the Amazon entity that is the Bronze member of DNS-OARC. Any suggestion to the contrary has no factual basis. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:57 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: 'gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 P.S. I only point out Google and Amazon as members of the organization mentioned in 3.(c) below because both are applicants for the .mail TLD (now “on hold” and frozen due to name collision issues). For anyone who does not know, our firm represents the United States Postal Service. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3437F.E6832BA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:33 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 1. Yes – that is what I meant when I said “consider as an alternative’. 2. Separately, could you please remind me what we said in Work Track 4 re registry rights in relation to idn equivalents to English TLDs owned by that registry? (This came up in Work Track 3 as to string similarity issues.) 3. Also, do we have any responses yet as to the request for input on revising the name collision framework (high risk, medium risk, low risk categories) as sent to (a) IETF (b) Ripe Labs (c) DNS Operations Analysis and Research Center (We note that Google is a Platinum Member and Amazon is a Bronze member) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3437F.E6832BA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:21 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens, Are you saying that staff recommended stick with current policy and current AGB language in Question 23 as an alternative? Nope, Staff alerted us that all 3 proposals are not that much different among each other and from current implementation, so they suggested it to also be considered in the whole process. Policy staff has a tradition of keeping a neutral standing and I would be surprised if they ever took position on anything, and they didn't in this case. I just tried to give credit were credit's due, since it was them that realised that. That said, I believe that moving forward comparing to current implementation will make sense for a good number of WT4 discussion topics, so this is likely to appear at some topics ahead. And looking ahead for the full WG Draft Report, I would be in favor in doing for the majority of themes, in fact. Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 6

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/<https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uYJEB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Martin Sutton:Good morning/evening! Julie Bisland:Welcome, Martin :) Jeff Neuman:1,2,3 good Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Wow - attendance is not very good. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@staff- the 520 number is Anne. Julie Bisland:thank you, Anne Trang Nguyen:One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP. Jeff Neuman:@trang - why Trang Nguyen:The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service. Trang Nguyen:sorry, i'm not on audio. Trang Nguyen:I can see how it could depend on how the service is proposed to be delivered. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies? Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, yes. Jeff Neuman:yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):That seems right to me. Jeff Neuman:P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :) Jeff Neuman:Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition Jeff Neuman:I am soooo sorry for naming the first one that. Did not expect that name to stick Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):okay thank you Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - we can't hear you Julie Bisland:Jeff, no audio Jeff Neuman:sorry, Jeff Neuman:it says i am speaking Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - What slide are you on? Jeff Neuman:or you could say "but may extend the contract negotiation process" Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sorry for delay joinung, as the telco tried to fix my line to the house, they discinnected the INTERNET line!!!! Cheryl Langdon-Orr:GRRR here now irritated but here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Ouch Cheryl - glad you got "connected". Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Phew indeed Anne Martin Sutton:Agree Jeff, thx. Rubens Kuhl:Yes. Jeff Neuman:yes Rubens Kuhl:Just a comment: the parenthesis is not contained in AGB. Rubens Kuhl:This is a quote from AGB... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes - but we don't have Question 23 and that is policy Jeff Neuman:Provide name and full description of all theRegistry Services to be provided. Descriptionsshould include both technical and businesscomponents of each proposed service, andaddress any potential security or stabilityconcerns.The following registry services are customaryservices offered by a registry operator:A. Receipt of data from registrars concerningregistration of domain names and nameservers.B. Dissemination of TLD zone files.C. Dissemination of contact or otherinformation concerning domain nameregistrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web-based Whois, RESTful Whois service).D. Internationalized Domain Names, whereoffered.E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).The applicant must describe whether any ofthese registry services are intended to be offeredin a manner unique to the TLD.Additional proposed registry services that areunique to the registry must also be described. Jeff Neuman:Sorry for bad formatting Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.or… Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor". Rubens Kuhl:Page 2-24 and on. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I hope I managed not to hash it too badly Jeff Jeff Neuman:i am not saying that Rubens Kuhl:Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB.. Rubens Kuhl:But it's the part that explains the procedures. Rubens Kuhl:2.2.3 "Registry Services Reviews" Rubens Kuhl:Even in 2012, Registry Services was a non-scored question. So one could fail due to failing that review, but not get any points for passin it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I did not realize Jeff's comment related only to pre-approved services. I still think Question 23 would have to stay in if the registry is proposing new services. Rubens Kuhl:Anne, current implementation guideline is what is in the evaluation procedures... the question text is how that guideline was implemented. Jeff Neuman:IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it Rubens Kuhl:SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl:Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation. Jeff Neuman:To me SP3 seems to make the most sense....but that is a personal opinion Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP. Jeff Neuman:ok..i will withdraw my personal opinion until then :) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services" Rubens Kuhl:Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned. Rubens Kuhl:We can come to that conclusion in the next few slides. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Certainly agree with that Cheryl. Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe so, yes. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff - that's a good clarification question. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Not by my understanding Jeff Correct me if I am wrong Rubens Kuhl:Slide 14 will give more clarity on that, if we get to that. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely Cheryl Langdon-Orr:were avoiding evoking the words Qualifying Questions Anne ;-) Martin Sutton:good point Anne, seems sensible to explore Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff so Applicant msut describe HOW it will deliver pre-approved services then Rubens Kuhl:In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc. Quoc Pham:a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services Quoc Pham:*little off track Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track Rubens Kuhl:Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about. Jeff Neuman:So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols Quoc Pham:@right, thanks Rubens that wasn't clear to me Quoc Pham:@Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think for the list, the questions would have to be longer and more detailed than portrayed in the matrix. Jeff Neuman:On slide 14, I think 1, 2 and 4 should be pre-approved Jeff Neuman:but 3 seems too broad Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Cheryl - sorry but I really must go - thanks so much! Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all! Martin Sutton:thanks all, bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye avri doria:bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017
by Steve Chan Oct. 12, 2017

Oct. 12, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/uYJEB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017 NOTES/ACTION ITEMS: 1. None 2. Registry Services Slide 5 -- Recollection of past discussions. E.g., means of collecting info to build Exhibit A, may have less value if done in bulk/incorported into RSP Program. Undergoing discussions might streamline registry service adoption. Possible source of innovation. Trang Nguyen: One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP. -- Q: Why? Registry services can be unique to a TLD/RO. Seems like it would be submitted by the RO. Jeff not certain that it's correct statement. - A: Trang Nguyen: The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies? A: Jeff Neuman: yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP Slide 6 - SP#1 -- Reading slide Slide 7 - SP#2 -- Reading slide -- Believes bottom paragraph is already contained in Q23. Would not need to provide details for pre-approved services. -- Last paragraph only reviews non-pre-approved services, so this is a change. Jeff Neuman: P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :) Jeff Neuman: Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition Slide 8 - SP#3 -- Reading slide -- Should remove contract negotiation process element in last sentence. Or change it to say that it may extend contract negotation (since RSEP possibly envisioned during contracting) -- RSEP envisioned at contracting time, which would likely extend timeline. -- Does this structure discourage disclosure of registry services at application time? If no new services proposed, does this speed up application processing? Anne in favor of disclosure at submission time. Some say having to disclose at submission time discourages innovation though. --Many will say that RSEP is much more painful than during application evaluation. For RSEP, if there is a security and stability issue, does go through public comment. Also possible if there is a contractual ammendment. Many do not want to disclose as it may impact first mover advantage with innovative service. Slide 9 - SP#4 (current implementation) -- Reading slide (Note - Registry services were reviewed in context of technical and financial questions) -- Should Q23 be viewed here as well for full context? -- Reading Q23... -- The following questions ask in detail (e.g., Q24, 25, etc.). Q23 is the big picture and not scored. -- Is the suggestion to remove Q23? Maybe not needed if there is only pre-approved services. How implemented, following questions, would still be needed. If you have the how, maybe you don't need the list. -- Maybe a separate conversation neeeded to see where duplicative questions could be be removed. -- Wasn't aware that Q23 removal would be in response to having a list of pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl: Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor". Jeff Neuman: IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it Rubens Kuhl: SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services. Rubens Kuhl: Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation. Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP. Slide 10/11 -- Reading slide -- #1 and #3 only requires applicant to inform about registry services that are not in the pre-approved list while #2 requires all services to be informed, although #2 only requires naming pre-approved services and to describe only additional services in detail. -- #1 incorporates a list of pre-approved services by reference, although mentioning some, while #2 and #3 explicitly names a list -- Is this a distinction without a difference? How different is by reference versus explicit list? -- Whether or not an explicit list is needed would need to be taken to the list. -- What does a list of pre-approved services mean? The how would still need to be provided and evaluated? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely -- There are certain protocol needs to implement DNSSEC, but the specifics of how are widely varying. Rubens Kuhl: In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services" Rubens Kuhl: Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned. Slide 12 -- Pre-approved services -- 2+ track -- Timing Slide 13 (with pre-approved services -- Pre-approved services -- 2+ track -- Timing Slide 14 (if there are pre-approved services) -- Base Exhibit A services -- IDN services following ICANN IDN guidelines -- Non-mandatory block-type RPMs -- BTAPPA ("Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition) Quoc Pham: a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track Rubens Kuhl: Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about. Jeff Neuman: So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols Pre-approved services by reference -- 6 yes Take questions to list, especially since next call is cancelled. Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 1. Name Collisions: Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead: -- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions -- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation -- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness. Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round: -- No life-threatening collisions; -- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences -- Median of 3 occurences per TLD -- Median of 22 days between delegation and report -- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc. Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.): -- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary. -- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action. -- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated. Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs: All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation. Options: a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework b) 1 year Poll: Option a: No one. Option b: 6 in favor Option c: 1 in favor >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs: Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions? Options: a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.) b) No need for readiness. c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA Poll: Option a: 4 in favor Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against Option c: None -- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs? >From the chat: Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present 2. Registry Services: ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week. Slide 12: Straw-person #1 Slide 13: Straw-person #2 Slide 14: Straw-person #3 Discussion on Straw-person #1: -- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge proposals for new services. -- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs. -- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue. -- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP.

3 7

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] CANCELLED MEETING / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

Folks, Just to be clear that the call that has been cancelled is not our next call in a few hours, but the one at October 24th. Rubens > On Oct 11, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> wrote: > > THIS CALL HAS BEEN CANCELLED, please make sure to remove it from your calendars. > > The PDP leadership team has decided to cancel this call because many participants will already be in transit to ICANN60 and unable to attend. > > Dear All, > > The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 24 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. > 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London BST, 22:00 Paris CEST > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ybxghqbu[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_ybxghqbu&d=…> > > Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/> > > You can connect your audio by following instructions in the pop up in the AC room, or use the Connect Me option below (also sent in the calendar invitation). > > Kind regards, > > Michelle DeSmyter > > You're Invited. > You've been invited to a GlobalMeet® phone only meeting. > Have the meeting call you. > Click the Connect Me link below. No need to dial-in. > Connect Me [toolbar.conferencinghub.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__toolbar.conferencinghu…> > Not at your computer? > You can join by dialing one of the access numbers below. > Mobile: > tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825# <tel://16054755604,*,,8650457825> > Access Number: > 1-605-475-5604 > Guest Passcode: > 8650457825 > Additional Access: > USA: > 1-605-475-5604 > USA: > 1-712-770-4203 > USA: > 1-719-457-6209 > Canada, Calgary: > +1 403 407 5793 > Canada, Montreal: > +1 514 669 5928 > Canada, Toronto: > +1 647 426 9172 > Canada, Vancouver: > +1 604 222 7836 > Argentina, Buenos Aires: > +54 (0) 11 5172 6003 > Argentina (toll free): > 0800 800 1223 > Australia, Sydney: > +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 > Australia, Melbourne: > +61 (0) 3 8687 0553 > Australia, Brisbane: > +61 (0) 7 3015 0535 > Australia (toll free): > 1 800 804 786 > Austria, Vienna: > +43 (0) 1 25302 1785 > Austria (toll free): > 0800 8866 3413 > Bahrain, Manama: > +973 1619 8739 > Bahrain (toll free): > 800 04212 > Belarus (toll free): > 8 820 0011 0341 > Belgium, Brussels: > +32 (0) 2 400 6928 > Belgium (toll free): > 0800 39279 > Brazil, Sao Paulo: > +55 11 4935 7169 > Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: > +55 21 4560 0072 > Brazil (toll free): > 0800 887 0233 > Bulgaria, Sofia: > +359 (0) 2 491 6045 > Bulgaria (toll free): > 00800 111 4950 > Cambodia, Phnom Penh: > +855 23 965 723 > Canada (toll free): > 1 855 950 3717 > Chile, Santiago: > +56 (0) 2 2666 0696 > Chile (toll free): > 171 800 835 783 > China (national): > +400 613 8103 > China, Beijing: > +86 10 5667 0003 > China, Shanghai: > +86 21 2039 7081 > Colombia, Bogota: > +57 1 508 8137 > Colombia (toll free): > 01 800 755 0102 > Costa Rica (toll free): > 800 542 5328 > Croatia (toll free): > 0800 805 940 > Cyprus (toll free): > 800 97424 > Czech Republic, Prague: > +420 225 986 554 > Czech Republic (toll free): > 800 701 532 > Denmark, Copenhagen: > +45 32 72 78 10 > Denmark (toll free): > 80 70 35 86 > Egypt (toll free): > 0800 000 0593 > Estonia, Tallinn: > +372 622 6551 > Estonia (toll free): > 800 011 1589 > Fiji (toll free): > 00800 3322 > Finland, Helsinki: > +358 (0) 9 2310 1677 > Finland (toll free): > 0800 772 236 > France, Paris: > +33 (0) 1 70 37 16 56 > France (toll free): > 0800 946 531 > France (national): > 0811 655 100 > France (national): > 0821 231 671 > Georgia, Tbilisi: > +995 32 2 050 778 > Germany, Frankfurt: > +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 > Germany, Munich: > +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 > Germany (national): > 01801 003 899 > Germany (toll free): > 0800 588 9170 > Greece, Athens: > +30 211 181 3824 > Greece (toll free): > 00800 128 913 > Hong Kong: > +852 3018 9111 > Hong Kong (toll free): > 800 901 787 > Hungary, Budapest: > +36 1408 8953 > Hungary (toll free): > 068 001 9673 > Iceland (toll free): > 800 9847 > India, Delhi: > +91 (0) 11 6641 1394 > India, Bangalore: > +91 (0) 80 6127 6710 > India, Mumbai: > +91 (0)22 6187 5028 > India, Chennai: > +91 (0)44 6688 6061 > India (toll free): > 1800 200 9415 > Indonesia, Jakarta: > +62 21 2188 9084 > Indonesia (toll free): > 007 803 321 8927 > Ireland, Dublin: > +353 (0) 1 526 9421 > Ireland (national): > 0818 270 271 > Ireland (toll free): > 1800 937 649 > Ireland (national): > 1890 907 630 > Israel, Tel Aviv: > +972 (0)3 721 7943 > Israel (toll free): > 1809 213 168 > Italy, Milan: > +39 02 3600 8006 > Italy, Rome: > +39 06 8750 0676 > Italy (toll free): > 800 146 094 > Japan, Tokyo: > +81 (0) 3 4560 1270 > Japan, Osaka: > +81 (0) 6 4560 2410 > Japan (toll free): > 0120 305 211 > Japan (mobile): > 0120 632 611 > Japan (national): > 0570 085 744 > Kazakhstan (toll free): > 8800 333 7554 > Kenya, Nairobi: > +254 (0)20 529 3581 > South Korea, Seoul: > +82 (0) 2 6007 0079 > South Korea (toll free): > 00798 6136 1454 > Latvia, Riga: > +371 6601 3627 > Latvia (toll free): > 8000 4418 > Lithuania, Vilnius: > +370 5205 5468 > Lithuania (toll free): > 8800 31449 > Luxembourg: > +352 2088 1749 > Luxembourg (toll free): > 800 28433 > Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur: > +60 (0) 3 7724 8010 > Malaysia (toll free): > 1 800 816 152 > Mexico, Guadalajara: > +52 33 4162 4504 > Mexico, Mexico City: > +52 55 8421 0326 > Mexico, Monterrey: > +52 81 4162 5648 > Mexico (toll free): > 01 800 733 4102 > Morocco, Casablanca: > +212 (0) 520 48 0022 > Morocco (toll free): > 0800 091 296 > Netherlands, Amsterdam: > +31 (0) 20 716 8345 > Netherlands (toll free): > 0800 020 2597 > New Zealand, Christchurch: > +64 (0) 3 974 2596 > New Zealand, Wellington: > +64 (0) 4 909 4674 > New Zealand, Auckland: > +64 (0) 9 929 1825 > New Zealand (toll free): > 0800 452 947 > Nigeria, Lagos: > +234 1 277 3944 > Norway, Oslo: > +47 21 00 48 15 > Norway (toll free): > 800 56081 > Oman (toll free): > 800 77265 > Panama, Panama City: > +507 8 335 913 > Panama (toll free): > 00800 223 1390 > Peru, Lima: > +51 (0) 1 700 9571 > Peru (toll free): > 0800 78102 > Philippines, Manila: > +63 (0)2 395 3426 > Philippines (toll free): > 1 800 111 013 99 > Poland, Warsaw: > +48 22 295 3570 > Poland (toll free): > 00 800 121 4356 > Portugal, Lisbon: > +351 21 316 4093 > Portugal (toll free): > 800 784 442 > Qatar (toll free): > 00 800 100 491 > Romania, Bucharest: > +40 (0) 21 529 3992 > Romania (toll free): > 0800 801 035 > Russia, Moscow: > +7 495 646 9181 > Russia (toll free): > 8 800 500 9241 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 844 6641 > Saudi Arabia (toll free): > 800 850 0219 > Serbia (toll free): > 0800 190 712 > Singapore: > +65 6622 1957 > Singapore (toll free): > 800 616 3192 > Slovakia, Bratislava: > +421 (0)2 3321 5498 > Slovakia (toll free): > 0800 002 002 > Slovenia, Ljubljana: > +386 1600 8695 > Slovenia (toll free): > 0800 81193 > South Africa, Johannesburg: > +27 (0)11 589 8321 > South Africa (toll free): > 0800 999 434 > Spain, Madrid: > +34 91 114 6653 > Spain, Barcelona: > +34 93 800 1946 > Spain (toll free): > 900 828 035 > Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka: > +94 720 910 333 > Sweden, Stockholm: > +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 > Sweden (toll free): > 0200 125 588 > Switzerland, Geneva: > +41 (0) 22 595 4795 > Switzerland, Zurich: > +41 (0) 44 580 7207 > Switzerland (toll free): > 0800 740 360 > Taiwan, Taipei: > +886 (0) 2 2650 7329 > Taiwan (toll free): > 0800 666 596 > Thailand, Bangkok: > +66 (0) 2104 0761 > Thailand (toll free): > 001 800 6136 1473 > Tunisia, Tunis: > +216 31 378 101 > Turkey, Istanbul: > +90 212 375 50 49 > Turkey (toll free): > 00800 4488 26642 > Ukraine (toll free): > 0800 500 896 > UAE (toll free): > 8000 3570 2662 > UK (03): > +44 (0)330 336 6002 > UK (toll free): > 0800 358 6385 > UK (national): > 0844 473 5010 > UK (national): > 0845 545 0015 > USA /Canada (toll free): > 1-866-398-2885 > Uruguay (toll free): > 0004 019 0152 > Venezuela, Caracas: > +58 212 720 2164 > Venezuela (toll free): > 0 800 162 7451 > Vietnam, Hanoi: > +84 4 4458 3312 > Vietnam (toll free): > 1800 9226 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>

1 0

In Preparation for our next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 12 October 2017 Your input and action is requested.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Oct. 6, 2017

Oct. 6, 2017

Further to the material recently distributed by Julie, from our WT4 call (see below) Rubens and I would like this list to consider, react and prepare for next weeks call, with regards to the important matters being discussed on Registry Services. If you can, please review the notes and recording from this call, tthe topic should start about 35-39 mins into the recoding as well as slides 12, 13, 14 and 15 from the slide deck. In our meeting we managed to do a brief run through of the 3 presented 'Strawperson' options outlined in slides 12,13 and 14, then begin but not complete our more detailed discussion around option 1. This is where we will take up our main Agenda items for next weeks WT4 call on Oct 12 at 0300 UTC. The intention is to continue on with our review, discussion and 'compare and contrast' of the various options, tabled to date. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful contributions, and we look forward to many of you joining us on Oct 12th. Kindest regards, Rubens and Cheryl (CLO) On Oct 6, 2017 09:05, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. *These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript.* See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- *Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017* *1. Name Collisions:* Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw *Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead:* -- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions -- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation -- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness. *Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round:* -- No life-threatening collisions; -- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences -- Median of 3 occurences per TLD -- Median of 22 days between delegation and report -- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc. *Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.):* -- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary. -- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action. -- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated. *Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs:* All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation. Options: a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework b) 1 year Poll: Option a: No one. Option b: 6 in favor Option c: 1 in favor >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. *Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs:* Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions? Options: a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.) b) No need for readiness. c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA Poll: Option a: 4 in favor Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against Option c: None -- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs? >From the chat: Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present *2. Registry Services:* ACTION: Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16. Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week. Slide 12: Straw-person #1 Slide 13: Straw-person #2 Slide 14: Straw-person #3 Discussion on Straw-person #1: -- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input. You don't know the impact that the services may have. Don't want to discourge proposals for new services. -- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated. Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel. We can go beyond that for new gTLDs. -- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications. There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue. -- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on. Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

1 0

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 05 October 2017
by Terri Agnew Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5rd5talvr7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6 443ff49bfca3e762f690bbacbaefaf5bc7f0e0b28a3e10d0> https://participate.icann.org/p5rd5talvr7/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iIdEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 05 October 2017 at 19:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_i IdEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ iIdEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg &s=-gCuaUVRfKPHRpw_r-z88vI91SufWhIBTEpkwaojnl8&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg&s=-g CuaUVRfKPHRpw_r-z88vI91SufWhIBTEpkwaojnl8&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):ahh I thought that was just me.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Could I get a dial out to 520-629-4428? Terri Agnew:@Anne dialing out Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Sound is better now. Rubens Kuhl:How is it now Terri ? Rubens Kuhl:I'm muted on my phone. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Cheryl - we all see fit and are happy about it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thanks Anne Steve Chan:FYI, the source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Y z2AAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Yz2AAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqd g&s=hQrONrrREUIHKvzUbrCcqu6hJeizEZeGLtxxv22ptzU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ESy_XKXUShi-NGOB_yivJuvH4s6_47v3AtNWshkXqdg&s=hQ rONrrREUIHKvzUbrCcqu6hJeizEZeGLtxxv22ptzU&e= Alan Greenberg:slide no? Rubens Kuhl:8 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):poll 2 y or longer 1st. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):NP Alan Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:yes to option b no green mark on my mobile connection Jon Nevett:1 year? Sarah L Verisign:Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):poll Lpt c. 1year.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol Jon Nevett:we should do a cost differential before voting Sarah L Verisign:I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position Jon Nevett:what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):understand Sarah bring the datain whenever you have it... Jon Nevett:if it is a lot, then it gets passed on Sarah L Verisign:thank you cheryl Alan Greenberg:Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different. Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y Alan Greenberg:My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:option a is a good idea Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think Rubens said - keep same period - is that what he said? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):thatbis the current assumption Anne, will be reviewed if needs be Rubens Kuhl:1 Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Good idea Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ):don't rush Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):LOL Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re the last poin on page 15, we could still have a list of pre-approved services as long as it does not leave too much wiggle room Terri Agnew:next meeting: the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl and Rubens. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye everyone. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:thanks all. have a great evening

1 0

Registry Service Strawman
by Langstone, Sarah Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Folks I am unable to make the next call (on a plane) but wanted to give my 0.02 I am warmer on Strawman 2 - caveat being that both tracks are adequately resourced to ensure that those that require additional approvals are not held up particularly as increasing/encouraging innovation was a principle behind the program. S

2 1

Ongoing name collision incident
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Nothing like real life experience to base policy discussions: there is an ongoing name collision incident in a legacy gTLD. D-Link routers have a default parameter given to local networks the suffix domain.name ; so, names without a full domain name get appended domain.name for its queries. Microsoft operating systems query for the string "wpad" to determine local proxy servers of an organisation. .name is a registry where a domain is required to be first.last.name , with two labels. So... someone registered wpad.domain.name and is now taking over browsing traffic for the affected users, which can be in the order of millions but are least in the thousands. For live view of the redirection process: https://gwhois.org/wpad.domain.name+dns <https://gwhois.org/wpad.domain.name+dns> http://wpad.domain.name/wpad.dat <http://wpad.domain.name/wpad.dat> will return the list of proxy servers under attacker control. (It currently returns this: function FindProxyForURL(url, host) { return 'PROXY 185.82.212.95:8080; DIRECT'; } ) Policy question for the item "name collisions in legacy gTLDs" is whether contracted parties should be obliged to act in a certain way under similar circumstances. Rubens

3 2

WT4 call - October 5 1900 UTC
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 5, 2017

Oct. 5, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on October 5, 1900 UTC (less than a day from now), after being rescheduled from last week. The proposed agenda is as follows, continuing themes related to Application Evaluation: 1. Welcome and SOI updates 2. Name Collisions 3. Registry Services 4. AOB Thanks, CLO & Rubens

1 0