July 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4

- GDD Recommendations Regarding Potential Updates to Registry Systems Testing and Technical Criteria/Evaluations
by Steve Chan July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Dear WT4 Members, You may recall that on WT4’s call on 8 June, members discussed SLA Monitoring misses or near-misses that had the potential to trigger the EBERO. As such, WT4 asked for GDD’s input into how the questions/evaluation and/or testing could be updated to help prevent SLA breaches in the future. Below, you’ll find the introductory paragraph from GDD’s response, with the full response attached: We are writing in response to a question raised in the call with the Work Track 4 (WT4) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process on 8 June 2017. On the call, the WT4 team asked for ICANN's recommendations for updating Registry System Testing [i.e., Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) and Registry Service Provider (RSP) Change Testing] based on issues or breaches seen by the SLA Monitoring (SLAM) system, as well as ICANN's recommendations generally for improving testing and technical evaluations. Below we have provided ICANN's recommendations to inform the WT ongoing discussions. It should be noted that these recommendations stand independently of each other and should not be understood to be contingent upon the implementation of another. Best, Steve 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/

2 1

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 20 July 2017 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 20, 2017

July 20, 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, 20 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2k5uqzdwce/<https://participate.icann.org/p2k5uqzdwce/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b560bc8bdbc53ab3…> 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/onHwAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 July 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rubens Kuhl:I'm seeing myself in double. Weird. Julie Bisland:Rubens, that's the line trying to call your telephone, it'll go away shortly Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Hi Cheryl it's Anne on the other phone number Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION What is the recommendation in SSAC 60 endorsed by Afilias? (BTW Rubens is muffled and breaking up. Should I dial in again?) Julie Bisland:Anne: he's muffled sounding, but I'm not hearing him break up. Emily Barabas:Full text of Aflias comment: "Afilias supports the recommendations of SAC060 “SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report”.Afilias supports the application of the design principles described in SAC084 “SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process” in the consideration of all IDNs." Emily Barabas:the slides are now unsynced Emily Barabas:Note that the full text of all CC2 comments for WT4 are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Rubens Kuhl:AFAIK a contractor called Interisle Rubens Kuhl:But it's not the same review as Interisle first name collision document Rubens Kuhl:Verifying it doesn't violate technical standards. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):to the extent possible it is automated Jeff Neuman:the system that accepts applications for new gtlds Rubens Kuhl:Do we need to include a glossary perhaps ? Was one included in the previous GNSO recommendations ? Rubens Kuhl:Sure Rubens Kuhl:This language is exactly what was seen in ICANN 59. Rubens Kuhl:So this specific language is not new. Steve Chan:Anne, all, the slides are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Steve Chan:And the transcript from the WG's ICANN59 F2F are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sched.co_B49Q&d=DwIFaQ&… Rubens Kuhl:We can't hear you Quoc. Quoc Pham:sorry, about that Quoc Pham:I think I'm sorted now Rubens Kuhl:We are not yet proposing AGB language at this point, but policy and implementation guidelines. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):thanks Cheryl. Rubens Kuhl:manual evaluation Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Please do "channel on" Cheryl! Rubens Kuhl:Which is a good suggestion, no matter who said it. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it was Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):String confusion in relation to IDNs came up in Work Track 3 as well. Don't agree on the "possible language" at all. Very big policy change here, isn't it? Quoc Pham 2:bundling is not a common term/standard, would this imply that it will become a standard? Rubens Kuhl:Anne, this is a policy change from 2012, but one the group agreed upon. Rubens Kuhl:But the not defined policy change is the question being asked. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Definitely overlaps with Work Track 3 Rubens Kuhl:Will reach out to WT3 co-chairs on this Anne. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Sounds good. Thank you Rubens! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Cheryl and Rubens. Emily Barabas:The upcoming call will be on Monday 24 July at 15:00 UTC Emily Barabas:Next call will be 20:00 UTC on Thursday 3 August Emily Barabas:for WT4 Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):2000 the. bye for now

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 July
by Julie Hedlund July 20, 2017

July 20, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 July. 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. Note also that the referenced document and slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 July WT4 CC2 Comments: Note that the full text of all CC2 comments for WT4 are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rH2Moiy_mNKh74-ihM74dXWJtcLGZjmbwFn… IDNs 4.1.1 - Do you agree or disagree with allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole words (ideograms or ideographs)? -- Nominet, BRG, RySG, ALAC, and Valideus supported allowing 1-char IDN TLDs in specific combinations of scripts and languages where a single character can mean a whole idea or a whole word. -- SSAC (see SAC052) recommended specific measures with respect to single-character IDN TLDs, which Afilias also supported. -- John Poole did not support allowing 1-char IDN TLDs. 4.1.2 - Do you have any general guidance or would you like to flag an issue requiring policy work for subsequent procedures regarding IDNs? -- RySG expressed that existing policies are sufficient in this area. -- Afilias expressed support for recommendations in SAC060. -- ALAC and John Poole pointed to additional areas for policy work on IDNs. 4.1.3 - How do you envision the policy and process to allow IDN Variant TLDs to be delegated and operated? -- RySG and Jannik Skou supported the concept of bundling. -- Nominet supported allowing different business models. -- ALAC recommended addressing this issue through participatory processes, offered additional considerations regarding bundling, and suggested measures to support stability and resilience. -- John Poole supported addressing this issue prior to subsequent procedures. 4.1.4 - Should the process of allowing 1-char IDN TLDs and IDN Variant TLDs be coordinated and/or harmonized with ccTLDs? If so to what extent? -- ALAC, Afilias, and John Poole supported harmonization. -- RySG expressed that is not within the remit of the GNSO to comment on ccNSO policy. -- SSAC referenced recommendations and comments included in SAC060, SAC084, and SAC089. Slide 6: IDNs -- Security and Stablity Review (Further Revised After ICANN59) -- Question: Who conducted the SSR Review? Answer: It was Interisle. Wasn't clearly defined in the last round. Most was testing of IDN rendering. Didn't include name collisions. -- Question: Are we talking about the verification being conducted by an independent third party? Answer: Verifying doesn't violate technical standards. Manual invalidation would be used as a last resort by ICANN, or delegated to a third party. To the extent possible it is automated. -- Question: What is the definition of "submission system"? Answer: This is just one aspect of the larger security and stability review. For the 2012 round the submission system would have been tasked, by using "submission system" that allows flexibilty in what kind of system would be used in future. It is the system that accepts applications for new gTLDs. Could change to "application submission system". -- Question: Re: manual invalidation -- the application submission system can only provide a valid or invalid result. If it comes through as invalid is there a manual system to validate it? Answer: If it is a valid test -- no issues identified -- then that would simply be a tick on the box. But if there wasn't the ability automated validation that would allow manual invalidation (or invalidation) as a last resort. Although noting that the system is not implemented at this stage. It depends on how the algorithm is implemented -- if it allows a tertiary system -- yes, no, and I don't know. Slide 7: IDNs: 1-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org and CC2 Comments) -- Question -- should we be more prescriptive? Do we know ALAC's thoughts? More particular and detailed consistent and predictable language is preferred. More than just a statement at highlevel "consistent with SSAC and JIG reports" but include specific references. The rationale is that any time we put documentation into codified language it is always a risk that people won't read or find the references. -- Someone had asked that the reference to country and/or territory names should be removed. Slide 8: IDN Variant TLDs (further revised after ICANN59) -- Leaving it to the registry was one of the CC2 comments (Nominet). -- ICANN cannot afford not deciding this. It needs to go either way. -- Pick up the question on the language and options at the next call. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION What is the recommendation in SSAC 60 endorsed by Afilias? Emily Barabas: Full text of Aflias comment: "Afilias supports the recommendations of SAC060 “SSAC Comment on Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Report”.Afilias supports the application of the design principles described in SAC084 “SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process” in the consideration of all IDNs." Rubens Kuhl: Verifying it doesn't violate technical standards. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to the extent possible it is automated Jeff Neuman: the system that accepts applications for new gtlds Rubens Kuhl: Do we need to include a glossary perhaps ? Was one included in the previous GNSO recommendations ? Rubens Kuhl: This language is exactly what was seen in ICANN 59. Rubens Kuhl: So this specific language is not new. Steve Chan: Anne, all, the slides are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pwffAw Steve Chan: And the transcript from the WG's ICANN59 F2F are available here: http://sched.co/B49Q Rubens Kuhl: We are not yet proposing AGB language at this point, but policy and implementation guidelines. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): String confusion in relation to IDNs came up in Work Track 3 as well. Don't agree on the "possible language" at all. Very big policy change here, isn't it? Quoc Pham 2: bundling is not a common term/standard, would this imply that it will become a standard? Rubens Kuhl: Anne, this is a policy change from 2012, but one the group agreed upon. Rubens Kuhl: But the not defined policy change is the question being asked. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Definitely overlaps with Work Track 3

2 1

Fwd: CC2 response summaries for Thursday
by Rubens Kuhl July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Since our focus on this Thursday WT4 call will be two items from CC2 (4.1 IDNs and 4.2 Universal Acceptance) (agenda to be circulated soon), staff kindly provided this summary of those sections of CC2 comments. Hope to talk to most of you tomorrow. Best, Rubens >

1 0