- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 - lists.icann.org

Letter from Akram to New gTLD Applications for .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL
by Martin Sutton March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Hi all, My apologies for not being able to make yesterdays WT4 meeting. As part of the groups discussions on name collisions, the following letter from Akram to applicants of .home, .corp and .mail may be of interest. It doesn’t say much other than the Board continues to review this but they remain in limbo for now - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-regist…: Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2016, regarding name collisions and their impact on the new gTLD applications for .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL.1 As you are aware, on 30 July 2014, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted the “Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework” and indefinitely deferred the delegation of the strings identified within the framework as high risk (.HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL).2 The applications for these strings have been “On-Hold” as a result of this resolution since 2014. We acknowledge your request that the “Board take formal action to commission an examination of mitigation measures that will enable the release of .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL.” Please note that the topic of name collision continues to be considered by the ICANN Board. For updates regarding Board activity, please visit the 2017 Board Meetings page on the ICANN website (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2017-board-meetings) We will update affected applicants if there is activity that directly impacts their application. Please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of Global Domains Division leadership with any questions. Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew March 6, 2017

March 6, 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 Monday, 06 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8g4vybqlx9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=7e0ccb1022a76ce8 90b1778dd68a33f6205fe03fa936ef8a9e4a9505817aa362> https://participate.icann.org/p8g4vybqlx9/ 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 ** 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/75LRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/75LRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 March 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations on Monday, 06 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_7 5LRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ 75LRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=dNAm14jWXIQFuTVPrw5k-YsDT0mNppfZCkgkNgJIuT g&s=cHET_xmV-_vSVtW4nuI3unv-DSB6SVC1NVmH4yA0dIQ&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=dNAm14jWXIQFuTVPrw5k-YsDT0mNppfZCkgkNgJIuTg&s=cH ET_xmV-_vSVtW4nuI3unv-DSB6SVC1NVmH4yA0dIQ&e= Rubens Kuhl:We can create Chebens, the name collision between Cheryl and Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):lol Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):has a nice ring to it though Jeff Neuman:Can Rubens turn up his mic? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Rubens your voice is a bit quiet Jeff Neuman:By policy changes, are we saying the policy as promulgated by the NGPC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:status quo Jeff Neuman:the burden right now to take down a site because of a collission is pretty high. To anyone's knowledge has any name actually been taken down Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:not aware of any names being taken down (at least not publically mentioned) Jeff Neuman:Should we cover the fainl recommendations of the JAS report Jeff Neuman:I think we have had several decades of living with expired domain deletions and expired registrations without much data on name collision causing any significant issues Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:indeed Jeff Jeff Neuman:So given that, I agree that no policy changes at this time from us are warranted Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Jeff Edmon:i feel perhaps we should say this is not a new gTLD specific issue Edmon:rather than we have no view Trang Nguyen:I don't Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Edmonton, recommendation that we do not see the current need for Policy Development, but rather to continue with the status quo, is not "no opinion" IMO, but yes we could note that this is not specifically a *New* gTLD issue Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:sorry "no view" Edmon:thanks for the clarification cheryl Edmon:sorry have toddlers sleeping right beside me and am using text :-P Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:ahh I know that very well with my youngest Granddaughter Edmonton Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:not on my side Jeff Neuman:Please come :) Jeff Neuman:Saturday morning Trang Nguyen:Thanks, All! Bye Edmon:bye Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Bye Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @all, safe travels! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:bye talk soon safe travels to those who are attending CPH

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 06 March
by Julie Hedlund March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March. 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 slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 March 1. Full WG Update -- short update -- Call later today at 20:00 UTC to finish going over the first reading of the CC2 questions. Also a full group call tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. -- Public comment will go through the month of April. -- Also Work Track 3 call tomorrow at 1500 UTC. 2. Name Collisions in Legacy gTLDs -- Not related to collisions in future TLDs, but in already delegated TLDs (Slide 6) Situation 1: use of a previously unregistered domain and Situation 2: use of DNS suffix list Work Track discussion: -- One option: Contracted Parties should be forced or could be allowed to take collision domains away from users. Or could provide a contractual option for how to deal with a collision. -- Second option: Agree or disagree with this statement? "Possible threats do not warrant policy changes." -- When we say no policy changes, we currently have no policy -- correct? So we accept the policy NGPC? Yes, the status quo. -- Agree that there is no policy, but allow expedited requests at registrar's discretion. -- So we specifically say that we do not bring forward the NGPC policy from the previous round. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: By policy changes, are we saying the policy as promulgated by the NGPC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: status quo Jeff Neuman: the burden right now to take down a site because of a collission is pretty high. To anyone's knowledge has any name actually been taken down. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: not aware of any names being taken down (at least not publically mentioned). Situation 3: Previously registered domain (slide 7) Work Track Discussion: -- Expired Domain Deletion and Expired Registration Recovery policies should be revised - or - possible threats do not warrant policy changes. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Should we cover the final recommendations of the JAS report? I think we have had several decades of living with expired domain deletions and expired registrations without much data on name collision causing any significant issues. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: indeed Jeff. Jeff Neuman: So given that, I agree that no policy changes at this time from us are warranted. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: +1 Jeff. Edmon: i feel perhaps we should say this is not a new gTLD specific issue, rather than we have no view. Trang Nguyen: I don't. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: Edmon, recommendation that we do not see the current need for Policy Development, but rather to continue with the status quo, is not "no opinion" IMO, but yes we could note that this is not specifically a *New* gTLD issue. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: sorry "no view" (different situation from the 2012 round -- and discussion below). Edmon: thanks for the clarification cheryl 3. Name collisions in 2012 Round gTLDs -- Name collision framework in 2012 round (slide 9) -- Required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening collision reports, for the first two years of delegation. -- Current number of collision reports is XXX occurrences report to ICANN, of which 0 were life-threatening. Work Track Discussion: -- 2012 round registries should extend such support beyond the 2-year period - or - occurrence experience does not warrant creation of policy to override what is in the agreements. [Three WT members agreeing with the second option -- no new policy.] -- Continue discussion on the mailing list. 4. Currently ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes (slides 10-16) -- Review and continue discussion in Copenhagen.

1 0

WT4 Meeting Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear WT4 members, Today's (March 6 2017) call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Name collisions in legacy gTLDs 5. Name collisions in 2012-round gTLDs 6. AOB 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 that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 23 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 23 February. 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 slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 23 February 1. Full Work Update: Next meeting Monday, 27 February at 1500 UTC. 2. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… -- Discussion of questions. -- Question 4.1 is accepted as written, from this call. 3. Universal Acceptance (See slides): -- UA in a Nutshell (Slide2) -- Key Points (Slide 3) Q&A: Next Round of TLDs: -- Question: In the AGB would be good to use a requirement for UA. Compliance with best practices. -- Answer: Could be in the AGB. We are more in the banking, social media, e-commerce, to be UA ready. Could be a good practice, but not a requirement. -- Question: Some people believe that ICANN should be warning people about gTLD issues (UA). -- Answer: We get pretty high acceptance rate for names that are short, and as they get longer they get longer. Wouldn't say that people should be warned. We are getting more applications to be ready. -- When you talk about UA I don't see how it applies to the next round. -- Not sure how it would apply. Registries might want to know about it. This has been an issue since 2001. -- Not just IDNs having IDN problems. -- What can an applicant do? The contract is subject to the IDN guarantee and the language tables? A lot is out of applicants' hands. What can a registry operator do? -- Make sure that non-IDN strings get picked up in Universal Acceptance. -- Leaning more towards a light touch. >From the chat room: Rubens Kuhl: Currently, AGB states that "Applicants must further demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the encoded IDN string does not cause any rendering or operational problems. " But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. But the follow-up example is of a tone higher than UA, mentioning mixed scripts. From registry agreement: "1.2 Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement." 4. CC2 Questions: -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Application Evaluation: (4.3 Https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw) -- Technical evaluation: 4.3.1: Is consolidation desirable? -- 4.3.2: Financial evaluation (reading questions)

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Terri Agnew Feb. 23, 2017

Feb. 23, 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, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p2xa02sm6zt/ 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 ** 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/bbTDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/bbTDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 09 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_b bTDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ bbTDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33Os U&s=HP5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=HP 5Heuorhzki8vQGIYxVZAvdZs570DMn-7J7-kSbU6w&e= Christa Taylor:Awesome slide!! Terri Agnew:Thank you Christa Steve Chan:Here is the sign-up sheet: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1g-2DOoBec-5FQ6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62SYo_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d =DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFz L7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7wGq H97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=7w GqH97g3LM8USjIuYefru8c3dpqrDErX9UivCUwbIY&e= Jeff Neuman:Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Jeff Neuman:Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se use to pass TLD applicants through PDT Jeff Neuman:In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Also known as IIS Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we need to note that yes Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_s ystem_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPS S6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp72b 1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS-Kz Q&e= avri doria:But SSAC is just advice and their comclusions might need verification an discussion Trang Nguyen:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en _system_files_files_sac-2D052-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkb PSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=a1LkfHOEp7 2b1VFZ87WTqQNx3OWgh-JrHQhK2J33OsU&s=GN59cjAdg-hOgul6DcrnS9qMKEHYbA1NdY35nbS- KzQ&e= Rubens Kuhl:The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on stringsimilarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approachto the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANNshould disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in allscripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of eachindividual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, andTLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet EngineeringTask Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of thisreport, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made inthis document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned abovehave been completed. Rubens Kuhl:Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz:Some single-charactier IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. Kurt Pritz:But it seems we could white-list scripts wher esingle characters are allowed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman:should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed @Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view Jeff Neuman:I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option Kurt Pritz:I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and a that a committee has paased on them somehow Jeff Neuman:@CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. avri doria:i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz:Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery Jeff Neuman:Good example Kurt Kurt Pritz:I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion Jeff Neuman:Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):True Jeff Jeff Neuman:could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability Jeff Neuman:and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that would work for me Jeff avri doria:it may be sufficnet that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution. Julie Hedlund:Time check: We are 6 minutes past the end of the call. Steve Chan:I was just going to note what Julie said... Julie Hedlund:Some staff may need to join other calls. Jeff Neuman:Really good session. Jeff Neuman:we will continue this next time Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Martin Sutton:Thank you Sarmad Jeff Neuman:thanks!! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all. Bye. Sarmad Hussain:thank you Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:have a great day all Christa Taylor:Thanks. avri doria:bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye

1 1

WT4 Meeting Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Universal Acceptance 5. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Don Hollander, Universal Acceptance Initiative Head. Adobe Connect room: 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 that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 09 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 09 February. 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 slides for today’s meeting are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 09 February 1. Full WG Update: -- Call for volunteers for three drafting teams: - Volunteer on the link to the sign-up sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6… 1) Different TLD Types -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw 2) Predictability/Community Engagement -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/Nz2AAw and https://community.icann.org/x/IT2AAw 3) Applications Assessed in Rounds – see: https://community.icann.org/x/Jz2AAw 2. IDN Program Update (see slides from Sarmad Hussain: IDN Program Update – WT4.pdf) Overview of Projects (slide 2) -- IDNs at Top Level: IDN TLD Program: Label Generation Rules, LGR Toolset, IDN Variant TLD implementation, etc. IDN TLD Program (slide 3) -- Phase 1 -- Case Studies -- Phase 2 -- Integrated Issues Report -- Phase 3 -- Projects: P1, P2.1, P6 -- Phase 4 -- Projects: P1, P2.2, P7 Root Zone LGR Procedure (slide 4) -- One Generation Panel per script or writing system -- Generation Panel flows into Integration Panel -- Integration Panel flows into rules Status of Root Zone LGR (slide 5) -- work in progress Status of Generation Panels (slide 6) -- 28+ scripts; 19+ GPs LGR Specification and Toolset (beta) (slide 7) -- Online beta deployment at: https://lgrtool.icann.org/ -- Open source license IDN Variant TLD Implementation (slide 8) -- applications indicate variant TLDs -- 25 September 2010 -- no variants of gTLDs delegated until appropriate variant managements solutions developed -- Integrated Issues Report (2012) -- Solutions: Root zone LGR procedure to define valid labels and variants; determine variant management mechanism. IDN Country Code Top-Level Domains (slide 9) IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (slide 10) -- Currently under review: issues with EPSRP -- ccNSO reviewed; finalized recommendations and under consideration by the Board. IDN Implementation Guidelines (slide 11) -- Guidelines for IDN registration policies and practices at the second level to address end-user concerns (minimize confusion) -- Contractually binding for registrars and registries -- Recommended for IDN ccTLDs -- GNSO requested updating the guidelines (current is 2011) -- Update is in progress. IDN Guidelines WG Members (slide 12) Summary of Items Covered by the Guidelines (slide 13) -- Detailed text of the recommendations at IDNGWG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/IDN/IDN+implementation+Guidelines. Reference Second Level LGRs (slides 14 & 15) -- Project to develop reference language tables -- Public comments: process for development and maintenance; guidelines for LGR Development; reference second level LGRs published Junee 2016. -- LGRs being developed and published since Oct 2016. Discussion: Q: Why are emoji TLDs not allowed ? A: The code points we can support are from IDNA2008 -- we can't do it independently. Would have to be taken up at the IETF platform. >From the chat room: Jeff Neuman: Q: Who is doing the work on whether and how vairiants can be used at the top level? Should this group be working on this, or is another group? A: What was suggested was that there has to be some technical solutions that need to be evaluated. An internal exercise is to find out what are the issues and what would be possible solutions. Bring solutions back to the community and get guidance. Maybe in the next couple of months. -- Until those come out the prohibition from 2010 should still apply -- right? Yes. Might look to this group as to how the solutions should be adopted into the policy, or what is relevant. Q: Would a TLD pass PDT today if it did not follow the reference LGRs? What did .se (IIS) use to pass TLD applicants through PDT? A: We are separately publishing reference IDN tables for the second level for the root zone LGR. A TLD can use those and if it does it will pass the test, but that does not mean it must follow them and can propose its own solutions, but then security and stability testing would be needed. -- We should probably consider putting that guidance into an AGB. Q: In 2012, registries were prohibited from applying for single-character IDNs at the top level. Do you see any reasons, policy or technical, why we should or should not continue this ban on a going forward basis? A: There is an SSAC advisory that explains why single character IDNs present a risk and suggesting that they should not be allowed. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-052-en.pdf. We could go back to the SSAC to see if that is a discussion to go back to them. -- Single characters in these languages so now is a really good time to engage in that work to see if there are any technical issues with single-character IDNs. -- That is noted. avri doria: But SSAC is just advice and their conclusions might need verification and discussion. Rubens Kuhl: The SSAC makes two recommendations:1. Given the potential for user confusion and the currently unfinished work on string similarity and IDN variants, the SSAC recommends a very conservative approach o the delegation of single-character IDN top-level domains. In particular, ICANN should disallow by default the delegation of all single-character IDN TLDs in all scripts; exceptions are possible, but only after careful consideration of each individual case.2. Because important relevant work on string similarity, IDN variant issues, and TLD label syntax is currently underway within ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and other bodies, ICANN should review the Findings of this report, and any policies that it adopts in response to recommendations made in this document, no later than one year after the three work items mentioned above have been completed. Rubens Kuhl: Citing this advice is a circular reference: it just said that AT THAT TIME the work was not ready. Kurt Pritz: Some single-character IDNs are very similar to single-character ASCII: for example, è. The community found no way to parse between Latin-character IDNS and Pictographs (if that is the right term) such as Chinese. But it seems we could white-list scripts where single characters are allowed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): well worth considering @Kurt Jeff Neuman: should probably add SSAC to last bullet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed @Jeff. all the more reason to coordinate with them in my view. Jeff Neuman: I think the Board would never contradict SSAC advice, so going it alone is not a viable option. Kurt Pritz: I would change the third bullet to creating a white list based upon being a ideograph and that a committee has passed on them somehow. (CLO -- Agree to include.) Jeff Neuman: @CLO, i agree that coordination with the SSAC should start ASAP on this. Even if it is a letter from us that states that we are considering whether the ban on single character IDN TLDs should be lifted. It has been seven years since SSAC 52, and we request that the SSAC re-evaluate the notion of allowing single-character IDNs at the top-level. IDNs: Consensus Call on 1-character IDN TLDs (slide 7 from SubPro WT4_9Feb2017.pdf) Possible language: "IDN 1-char gLTDs won't be disallowed for script/language combinations where a character is an ideograph (or ideogram), provided they are not country and/or territory names." Discussion: -- Coordination with ccNSO and GAC consultations [add SSAC?] might be advisable. If and if so, when to start them? -- Ask the plenary for an early start on this matter so it can go in parallel. -- Comments on one-character IDN TLD why it may cause security issue: One of the arguments presented is that the chances of confusability increases if it is a shorter string. Second is that calling out ideographs -- normally they are script based, not language based, so there could be an argument that if they don't have a meaning if a particular script allowed why is another character of another script not allowed (question limit to ideographs). -- If you have a longer string you have a context, but if you have a single character there is no context. -- From a staff perspective we would agree that reaching out to the SSAC is a priority, but I am not sure we have agreed that there is a need for a single character, to perhaps update their existing advice. Staff will consider a proposal on how to reach out to the SSAC and present that the the WT. >From the Chat: avri doria: i would argue against that, in a longer string the bogus character can hide better. Kurt Pritz: Right, which are more confusing: a vs e; or dictionary vs dictionery. Jeff Neuman: Good example Kurt. Kurt Pritz: I agree with Sarmad (if I understood the point correctly) on defining what is an ideograph and that leading to confusion. Jeff Neuman: Just because things may be more likely to be confusing does not mean we should disallow it completely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): True Jeff IDNs: Consensus Call on Variant TLDs (slide 8) Possible Language: "IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs won't be disallowed provided: (1) they have the same registry operator implementing, by force of agreement, technical bundling (as defined in RSEP 2014012) among the members of the TLD set; (2) top-level LGRs and second-level LGRs already established for the script/language at evaluation time." Discussion: -- I thought Sarmad said they are studing this and until that is done this might be premature. Need guidance on when that study is done. -- In this case if we have arguments based on consensus I see no harm in making them. I am not sure we need to necessarily postpone a first cut, if the group is ready. -- Part of the work we (ICANN) have been doing -- currently the solutions .china ccTLD for example, We have actually seen that there is more than one solution technically. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Could we add something to the end that makes this recommendation pending any findings by the SSAC that the delegation of variant TLDs do not cause issues of security or stability, and do any of those 3 implementations cause technical problems? avri doria: it may be sufficient that there are set of possible solution to enable the policy discussion. we do not necessarily have to require a specific solution.

1 0

Next WT4 call
by Rubens Kuhl Feb. 9, 2017

Feb. 9, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC, 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET. For other times: http://migre.me/w0XQ7 <http://migre.me/vTJup> The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. IDNs (including but not limited to IDN Variant TLDs*) 5. CC2 questions (if there is interest) 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB *This meeting will feature a special guest: Sarmad Hussain, ICANN IDN Programs Director. Considering the previous discussion on IDN Variant TLDs, the goal is to get to a consensus call on the topic, if such a consensus is found to be achievable. 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 that was sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call
by Emily Barabas Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update 4. CC2 questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…>) 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Rubens will send revised schedule to the WT Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Full WG update - Our next meeting is on Monday 30 January at 15:00 UTC - Full group is creating drafting teams, calls will go out at the end of the week - Drafting teams will focus on categorization, rounds vs. other models for subsequent rounds, discussions coming out of WT2 - WTs are working on questions for CC2 - The plan is for CC2 to go out mid- to late- February 4. CC2 questions - Working document for CC2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> - Regarding IDNs, we may want to consider adding a CC2 question about IDN variants - Jeff Neuman suggested asking about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs and challenges they experienced - Rubens was not sure if CC2 was the right place to ask for this input, but agreed it would be useful to have input on this issue From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round - Where can we factor in possible limitations in infrastructure? Rubens will propose text for a question on the list - Should other factors be taken into account when someone applies for multiple vs. one TLD (evaluations, launch schedule, architecture, business continuity issues, etc)? - The exact metrics and methods are not yet known, but the volume should be factored in - Evaluation panel did raise this issue to ICANN - There was a reference in the AGB that applications needed to be evaluated on a standalone basis, which is why evaluations occurred this way From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Question for ICANN/Evaluators: Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman: Was there any post mortem process? Jeff Neuman: If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen: We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman: PIRR? Trang Nguyen: Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman: Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen: They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman: Why confidential? Trang Nguyen: We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman: I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen: Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 - Current plan: focus next call on IDN and UA - Target: produce CC2 questions in WTs by the end of January, full WG will consider all CC2 questions and send out for public comment in mid-February - No objections expressed regarding this timeline 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes - "Financial Evaluation must be performed in aggregation of a registry family" - Question to consider: should the financial evaluation be different for certain types of applications? - Trang Nguyen (staff): The financial panel recognized two types of financial models 1. closed model (self supporting) 2. open model (meant to generate revenue). They looked at the applications differently and different thresholds were applied. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model Jeff Neuman: @Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton: That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? - If the group can get additional information about the existing models of evaluation, this could be put out for comment as part of CC2. - We are not in the business of evaluating business models. We need to be flexible about the questions we ask in order to ensure sustainability. - Trang: We can't assume that model of the applicant will be the business model forever. Therefore we need to look at the broader picture of the application. From the chat: Martin Sutton: @Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over - Some of these issues are discussed in the Program Implementation Review Report - One model discussed including a second level in a yearly membership, example of different ways of looking at business model - For future consideration: change of features post-contract - what are the change processes? Do the processes we have now address all the possible changes that could occur? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Jeff Neuman: Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan: I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman: Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones - This WG may want to go deeper into the types of issues that should be considered in evaluations - In the last round, change in business model sometimes occurred during application process or after signing registry agreement. This caused challenges for ICANN staff. Maybe it would be less of an issue if the rounds were shorter. - Jeff: We should probably deal with changes in the application process but not after the contracting phase. We could recommend a separate PDP to address changes later in the process. -If application processing is faster in future rounds, there may be fewer changes to the model during the application process. From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): re change of mode Phil Buckingham: Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton: Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): mode=model yes Jeff agree From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday 19 January 2017 at 17:37 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call 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, 19 January 2017 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 ** 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/wLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Terri Terri Agnew:@Jeff audio quality is good at this time Terri Agnew:30 January New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:All hands have been cleared Jeff Neuman:Not sure how to phrase this, but I would love to hear about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs Jeff Neuman:What challenges they have had Jeff Neuman:what can be done for improvement Alan Greenberg:I am not seeing anything in the centre pod. Alan Greenberg:oops - now back! Martin Sutton:need to amend the financial question to quote financial Martin Sutton:its done Martin Sutton:thx Jeff Neuman:For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round. Jeff Neuman:Question for ICANN/Evaluators:Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman:Was there any post mordem process? Jeff Neuman:If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen:We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman:PIRR? Trang Nguyen:Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman:Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen:They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman:Why confidential? Trang Nguyen:We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman:I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen:Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. avri doria:Trang, that would be good to check if you could. Thanks Phil Buckingham:which bullets points do you wish to discuss . Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model . Jeff Neuman:@Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton:That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? Martin Sutton:Should there also be some differentiation between self-funded registries where they are the only registrant, i.e. impact on registrants is not relevant? Phil Buckingham:@ Trang , does ICANN have the points scored for each question by application by type of business model ( ie closed / open / IDNs ) . Then possibly we can start to identify the problem questions Martin Sutton:@Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over Phil Buckingham:@ trang- when an applicant reaches a set number of DUMs ? I thought it was 50K that would trigger a change from closed model to an open one ? Jeff Neuman:@Trang - good questions Jeff Neuman:@Avri - correct. That is being implemented by some TLDs now Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Phil Buckingham:Exactly Avri - does a change of application status mean new financial evaluation / due diligence Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not aware of any of our WT s looking at that either Avri so yes we need to catch them Jeff Neuman:Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan:I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman:Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones Phil Buckingham:+1 Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re change of mode Phil Buckingham:Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton:Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):mode=model yes Jeff agree Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Trang Nguyen:Sorry, i will try to provide answers to questions aked in the chat via the mail list. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks Ruben and the rest avri doria:thanks Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all!

1 0