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

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

Call for Participation: IAB workshop on Explicit Internet Naming Systems
by Rubens Kuhl June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

This is somewhat related to WT4 topics: https://www.iab.org/2017/06/22/call-for-participation-iab-workshop-on-expli… <https://www.iab.org/2017/06/22/call-for-participation-iab-workshop-on-expli…> Internet namespaces rely on Internet connected systems sharing a common set of assumptions on the scope, method of resolution, and uniqueness of the names. That set of assumption allowed the creation of URIs and other systems which presumed that you could authoritatively identify a service using an Internet name, a service port, and a set of locally-significant path elements. There are now multiple challenges to maintaining that commonality of understanding. Some naming systems wish to use URIs to identify both a service and the method of resolution used to map the name to a serving node. Because there is no common facility for varying the resolution method in the URI structure, those naming systems must either mint new URI schemes for each resolution service or infer the resolution method from a reserved name or pattern. Both methods are currently difficult and costly, and the effort thus scales poorly. Users’ intentions to refer to specific names are now often expressed in voice input, gestures, and other methods which must be interpreted before being put into practice. The systems which carry on that interpretation often infer which intent a user is expressing, and thus what name is meant, by contextual elements. Those systems are linked to existing systems who have no access to that context and which may thus return results or create security expectations for an unintended name. Unicode allows for both combining characters and composed characters when local language communities have different practices. When these do not have a single normalization, context is required to determine which to produce or assume in resolution. How can this context be maintained in Internet systems? While any of these challenges could easily be the topic of a stand-alone effort, this workshop seeks to explore whether there is a common set of root problems in the explicitness of the resolution context, heuristic derivation of intent, or language matching. If so, it seeks to identify promising areas for the development of new, more explicit naming systems for the Internet. We invite position papers on this topic to be submitted by July 28, 2017 to ename(a)iab.org <mailto:ename@iab.org>. Decisions on accepted submissions will be made by August 11, 2017. Proposed dates for the workshop are September 28th and 29th, 2017 and the proposed location is in the Pacific North West of North America. Finalized logistics will be announced prior to the deadline for submissions.

1 0

Document for Comment: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 June
by Emily Barabas June 20, 2017

June 20, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, On the call today, WT members requested an editable version of text on the slides, so that they can more easily review the content, offer suggestions, and propose edits. This text has now been added to the very beginning of the WT4 working document (under the header FOR WT MEMBER REVIEW -- ITEMS DISCUSSED ON 19 JUNE CALL), available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Axd1hmt6-qSaCGxC9UbTqBM4gP7aVxySOH3fMZ1…. If you are having trouble with this document or prefer to work with a Word version of the text, please get in touch. Kind regards, Emily From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 20 June 2017 at 16:24 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 20 June Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 June. 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 below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 June Action Item: Create an editable text. 1. Full Work Group Update -- Next meeting is in ICANN59. See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49Q/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-p… -- Geographic Name session -- Putting the different proposals into documents for review. -- Working with CBI to arrange GeoNames sessions at ICANN59 2. Tentative consensus discussions: -- Demonstrating technical capability only after evaluation -- Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible -- Financial Evaluation to be performed in aggregation of a registry family -- Universal Acceptance -- IDNs Security and stability review -- IDNs 1-char TLDs -- IDN Variant TLDs -- Name collision framework for subsequent procedures 5. Topic still requiring more discussion: (time permitting) -- Name collisions in legacy and current gTLDs -- 2-year readiness in name collision framework Slide 6: Demonstrating technical capacity only after evaluation (revised after CC2). Slide 7: Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated/consolidated as feasible: Slide 8: Financial Evaluating to be performed in aggregation of a registry family. Slide 9: Universal Acceptance -- Great to know what questions people would want prior to any new language. -- Not saying anything very different. Slide 10: IDNs: Security and Stability Review -- Need to adjust language related to RFCs (e.g., required versus informational) -- LGRs should be singular Slide 11: IDNs: I-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org, and CC2 Comments) -- Not sure the role of this section is to comment on country or territory names here. -- Ideogragh or ideogram -- not sure these are the right terms. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avir and Jeff re Strawperson on geo names - it is going to be tough when you ask the country whether the name is protected by national legal right or not. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): *@Avri - not Avir! Jeff Neuman: Thanks....been having some power issues at my home Jeff Neuman: But I am back Jeff Neuman: Strawbunnies hopped away avri doria: Anne, just one of the challenging subjects, I expect Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes this is an aspirational Agenda... To Be Continued if needs be.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avri - yes - but Strawperson very interesting for discussion! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Does previously approved "infrastructure" mean a previously approved back-end provider? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I just dont know what "infrastructure' means Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree Harmonized language will be useful/// Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes All tracks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree about harmonized language. How does a new provider get approved Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and a glossary in our reports Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Are we suggesting that timing of consideration/evaluation of an application would depend on who the back-end provider is? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: That seems prejudicial to new entrants in the arena of back-end registry operator services if so. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Ruben for clarifying it does not affect priority of evaluation. But even if it speeds things up in terms of evaluation, it might be prejudicial to new entrants because applicants won't choose new entrants.

1 0

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

June 20, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 June. 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 below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 20 June Action Item: Create an editable text. 1. Full Work Group Update -- Next meeting is in ICANN59. See: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49Q/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-p… -- Geographic Name session -- Putting the different proposals into documents for review. -- Working with CBI to arrange GeoNames sessions at ICANN59 2. Tentative consensus discussions: -- Demonstrating technical capability only after evaluation -- Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible -- Financial Evaluation to be performed in aggregation of a registry family -- Universal Acceptance -- IDNs Security and stability review -- IDNs 1-char TLDs -- IDN Variant TLDs -- Name collision framework for subsequent procedures 5. Topic still requiring more discussion: (time permitting) -- Name collisions in legacy and current gTLDs -- 2-year readiness in name collision framework Slide 6: Demonstrating technical capacity only after evaluation (revised after CC2). Slide 7: Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated/consolidated as feasible: Slide 8: Financial Evaluating to be performed in aggregation of a registry family. Slide 9: Universal Acceptance -- Great to know what questions people would want prior to any new language. -- Not saying anything very different. Slide 10: IDNs: Security and Stability Review -- Need to adjust language related to RFCs (e.g., required versus informational) -- LGRs should be singular Slide 11: IDNs: I-Char IDN TLDs (revised after WT4, SSAC, ICANN Org, and CC2 Comments) -- Not sure the role of this section is to comment on country or territory names here. -- Ideogragh or ideogram -- not sure these are the right terms. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avir and Jeff re Strawperson on geo names - it is going to be tough when you ask the country whether the name is protected by national legal right or not. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): *@Avri - not Avir! Jeff Neuman: Thanks....been having some power issues at my home Jeff Neuman: But I am back Jeff Neuman: Strawbunnies hopped away avri doria: Anne, just one of the challenging subjects, I expect Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes this is an aspirational Agenda... To Be Continued if needs be.. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avri - yes - but Strawperson very interesting for discussion! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Does previously approved "infrastructure" mean a previously approved back-end provider? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I just dont know what "infrastructure' means Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree Harmonized language will be useful/// Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes All tracks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree about harmonized language. How does a new provider get approved Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and a glossary in our reports Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: Are we suggesting that timing of consideration/evaluation of an application would depend on who the back-end provider is? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: That seems prejudicial to new entrants in the arena of back-end registry operator services if so. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Ruben for clarifying it does not affect priority of evaluation. But even if it speeds things up in terms of evaluation, it might be prejudicial to new entrants because applicants won't choose new entrants.

1 0

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 20, 2017

June 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 Tuesday 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1b57pylw93/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a8c8766f892347ba…> https://participate.icann.org/p1b57pylw93/ 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/FRLfAw> https://community.icann.org/x/FRLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=5n0SnNpYVIX6LpVwt0xSyOU-X37PCa83H7YPTjMDUq0&s=Bv23WhXqBb8L3UNIj8NlDk75BKjrIXjABsvtsrCZgoo&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Hi Terri - I am in Listen Only mode right now. Jeff Neuman:thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it's good Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Its ok....but you still sound australian Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes Jeff Neuman:No comment from Cheryl to my post.... Jeff Neuman::) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Gooday Cheryl! Jeff Neuman:Bobs your uncle avri doria:jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Rubens Kuhl:Lost Jeff's audio. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):We lost you Jeff Rubens Kuhl:But I hear Cheryl. Terri Agnew:@Jeff, we are unable to hear you at this time. Would you like a dial out? Terri Agnew:Jeff's AC dropped Alan Greenberg:What ever happened to straw bunnies? Terri Agnew:Welcome back Jeff avri doria:strawbunnies whne i create the first draft, strawpersons when Jeff starts the first draft Alan Greenberg:Bunnies are gender neutral. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Avir and Jeff re Strawperson on geo names - it is going to be tough when you ask the country whether the name is protected by national legal right or not. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):*@Avri - not Avir! Jeff Neuman:Thanks....been having some power issues at my home Jeff Neuman:But I am bacck Jeff Neuman:Strawbunnies hopped away avri doria:Anne, just one of the challenging subjects, I expect Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes this is an aspirational Agenda... To Be Continued if needs be... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Avri - yes - but Strawperson very interesting for discussion! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does previously approved "infrastructure" mean a previously approved back-end provider? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I just dont know what "infrastructure' means Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree Harmonized language will be useful/// Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes All tracks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree about harmonized language. How does a new provider get approved Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and a glossary in our reports Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Are we suggesting that timing of consideration/evaluation of an application would depend on who the back-end provider is? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: That seems prejudicial to new entrants in the arena of back-end registry operator services if so. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Ruben for clarifying it does not affect priority of evaluation. But even if it speeds things up in terms of evaluation, it might be prejudicial to new entrants because applicants won't choose new entrants. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION - object to what? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: What is a "registry family"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Best to go back to the last slide to deal with Annes question as your call for objections to the Possible Language relates to that and the Language iis written there Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does this mean that ICANN will evaluate whether a back-end provider is trying to operate too many registries at once? QIESTION Jeff Neuman:Hello.....my power went out again, but I think it is ok....hopefully to stay Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl. This looks okay if it does not confer priority consideration in terms of timing. Cheryl, you are NOT INTERFERING. Terri Agnew:stay safe Jeff, let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful Jeff Neuman:With voip and already used the back up battery, I am not sure telephone is better Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):POSSIBLE OBJECTION HERE BECAUSE some may apply for several TLDs but knowing they will only actually end up with a more limited number. Jeff Neuman:Family? That will need a definition avri doria:yes, i was just about to type that Jeff Neuman:Affiliates Trang Nguyen:Thanks for asking, Jeff. I had the same question. avri doria:i think family may be ok, once defined Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree about "registry family". And I thought Rubens said it was already defined - very confusing discussion. Alan Greenberg:Wassn't there a def'n of families/related used in the VI decision? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and currently used by GDD avri doria:so maybe they have a definiton writen somewher we can incorporate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does this new language make it less likely that one operator can use 400 LLCs to apply to operate 400 TLDs? avri doria:and we may need to make sure we are using it consistently Jeff Neuman:@Anne - I dont think so. The purpose of the hundreds of LLCs is for ease of sale, or making deals, and for a whole host of reasons unrelated to this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):from RAA => 1.5 "Applicable Registrar Family" means, with respect to Affiliated Registrars, such Affiliated Registrar as a group. Jeff Neuman:In fact, I think it helps the consolidated registries because each application is not evaluated on its own Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):OBJECTION - I have a procedural objection to suddenly being presented with new proposed language j- not enough time to consider what it means and tthen being given 5 seconds to respond or OBJECT. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - All of these are subject to review....I think this is more like a "sense of the room" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Perhaps we also need to note this is just a first read through to establish any objections before we actually build consensus Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Exactly Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good point re Must vs Should Avri Jeff Neuman:What if there are zero applications for IDNs? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff et al - a FIRST READING usually means a consensus draft reached by subteam before finalizing language. This is not that process because the language was not even circulated on the list to my knowledge. NO WAY is this a real first reading. Jeff Neuman:Does that invalidate the process Jeff Neuman:We cant control who applies, right? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):In this language "should" perhaps could read "need to be made aware of... ... ..." Jeff Neuman:I agree with the Avri caution flag.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Correct Alan a forst read through not a "formal Reading" Jeff Neuman:Google would if you used Internationalized characters Jeff Neuman:@Alan - What are the issues you need to know Alan Greenberg:If there is a stament such as Rubens is suggesting ( a warning a UA), ther we need to understand the details more. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):ComMENT: If we are in a "read-through", we should not be talking about Objection or No Objection. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):The Possible Language sections are attempting to review opinion from our previous discussions and begin formulation of useful text for us to develop with due process into recommendations avri doria:Anne, it is just a word, as long as everyone understands we will be back her agan, it is useful to know whether anyone has an objection at this point in time. why wait till later to object.? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):this is a stage in a refinement process ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Or it is tryring to be... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree that the issue of risk as to universal acceptance should be disclosed in the guidebook. Jeff Neuman:I dont think so either. We can ask the UASG for that write-up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We can make that an AI then Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):to approach the UASG for possible text Jeff Neuman:@Cheryl - If others think that is a good idea Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just we are likely to see several of the SG in the JNB meeting... Trang Nguyen:Section 2.1.4 of the AGB has the notice language RE: Universal Acceptance. It's too long to be copied and pasted here. Jeff Neuman:I would phrase it as a Supplement to the Applicant Guidebook to comprehensively cover the types of issues faced, potential solutions, and a description of the new ticketing system for UA Trang Nguyen:Sorry, Section 1.2.4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Trank we will ask the SG to look to that but that was pre their work... Jeff Neuman:@Trang - If I remember correctly, wasnt that more legalese as opposed to a layman's description Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Not enough time to consider whether or not we have objections since meaning of language is not clear. For example, Rubens says that grouping of "registry family" might affect speed of application processing. I am not at all sure that is a good idea as it will discourage new entrants in back-end registry operators so I guess I have to say I OBJECT. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry typo in your name Trang Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, it's not just legalese. It contains a description of the potential issues that can be encountered. Trang Nguyen:...but yes, there's legalese and disclaimers Jeff Neuman:@Trang - Yes, but we have learned so much since then, including perhaps developing an FAQ, and also to help applicants understand what they need to do Trang Nguyen:Agree Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Exactly Jeff Sarmad Hussain:Yes, take the AI Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@CHERYL - Could you please ask that all these slides be ciruclated to the list for comment right away before Johannesburg? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Certainly Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Language that talks about "country and/or territory names" has to bbe worked on and cross-referenced to whatever is worked out withs geo names. COMMENT Jeff Neuman:I would remove the references to country and/or territory names Jeff Neuman:We could say "provided that they are not otherwise prohibited and do not introduce confusion risks.... Jeff Neuman:Or at the beginning just say "Except as otherwise prohibited, Unicode Character..." Jeff Neuman:@Rubens - I am sure there will be a whole other section talking about country and territory names Jeff Neuman:we should not do it here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):those CKJ characters are often defined as 'brush script' characters are they not Alan? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@CHERYL - It would be good to get these slides in a format that allows redlining of the proposed language. Jeff Neuman:Creates confusion to mention it here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl! It would be great to cut and past proposed language as you say! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks everyone. Rubens Kuhl:Many Cheryls speaking. ;-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye Jeff Neuman:@Cheryl - Thanks! Safe travels everyone Trang Nguyen:Bye everyone. Rubens Kuhl:See most of you in JNB, bye! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye

1 0

Root Zone Scaling Myths
by Rubens Kuhl June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

While most current root zone scaling information is available in the CDAR report (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cdar-root-stability-final-08mar…) I did some research regarding root zone scaling, and found that the most comprehensive source to understand is this ICANN report of 2012: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/root-scaling-27… Besides all its interesting content, they compiled a list of previous root zone scaling studies that I reproduce here, changing only the link style and updating the links to their current publishing points: "Appendix A — Previous Studies and Analyses A number of studies and analyses have been compiled on the topic of scaling of the DNS Root Zone in the last three years: • Root Zone Augmentation and Impact Analysis(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-zone-augementatio… — This study, also known as the “L-Root Study,” examined the impacts of multifaceted growth of the size of the Root Zone on the performance of “l.root-servers.net,” the root server that is managed by ICANN. This analysis considered the implications of IPv6 addresses, DNSSEC, as well as new TLDs in a laboratory simulation. The work was conducted by the independent DNS Operations and Research Center (DNS-OARC). This study was published in September 2009, and its conclusions include that root zone servers’ requirements for memory grow linearly with the number of top-level domains, that the then-deployed software was capable of handling at least 100,000 top-level domains before there was potential degradation in response times. Other software in use had higher thresholds (i.e. over a million TLDs) before the size of the root zone became a factor. • Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-scaling-study-report-… — This report was developed by a specially convened “Root Server Scaling Team” (RSST), comprised of experts from the RSSAC, SSAC as well as experts from outside the ICANN community. • Summary of the Impact of Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-of-impact-roo… — An analysis of issues relating to the impact of Root Zone Scaling was prepared by ICANN and published the document in October 2010. This document considers the findings of the DNS-OARC and RSST reports, and the various root scaling events to date. It identifies the impacts from IPv6 deployment, TLD growth, DNSSEC deployment and other factors, and concludes the maximum growth to the Root Zone caused by the New gTLD Program is unlikely to cause any disruption. • Report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on Root Scaling(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-046-en.pdf) — ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee reviewed the original research questions relating to Root Zone Scaling, and provided recommendations relating to processes to handle the increase in the number of top-level domains. • Explanatory memorandum on Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/root-zone-scaling-15a… — As part of a number of briefing papers associated with the New gTLD Program following dialogue between the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee, ICANN published a memorandum concerning Root Scaling in April 2011. • Board response to the GAC on Root Zone Scaling(https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/root-scaling-30may11-… — ICANN published an additional response to the issues raised on dialogue between the ICANN Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee, by providing further detail on how ICANN undertakes to address the ICANN community’s and the GAC’s concerns regarding root scaling. This response was published in May 2011." Besides those documents, the other interesting documents on this are: Anticipated delegation rate model: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/anticipated-delegation-rate-model-… 2010 RSSAC e-mail to Board regarding scaling: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/murai-to-board-25nov10-en.pdf SAC 042 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-042-en.pdf) (later superseded by SAC 046) In short, the anticipated delegation rate model estimated the maximum *evaluation* throughput to be near a 1000 per year, and other ACs responded that it wouldn't be a problem to be delegated. They have not said that the system had a 1000/year limit, a myth that started only when the number of applications (near 2000) exceeded the high estimate of applications (a thousand), that discussion went stray and landed at that being a limit. Since those studies, processing power, memory sizes, DNS software design and available bandwidth all greatly increased, so even figures that were determined at that point (like the 100,000 TLDs root zone size) are outdated, although still limited by latency of the global Internet (which is mainly determined by the speed of light in optical fiber). The root zone now features DNSSEC and IPv6 to most TLDs, so something that was an unknown at that time is now a baseline, the root zone management system has been completely rewritten, and root server monitoring instrumentation greatly improved (see RSSAC 002, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-002-measurements-root-06j…) But, we didn't get an RSSAC response to our CC2 question on the CDAR report, nor they mentioned this in their comments to the CDAR report which were mostly clarifying questions. I believe we could ask them to clarify that and clear the fog in this topic. Rubens

2 2

WT4 Call #13 Agenda
by Rubens Kuhl June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC, 05:00 Brussels, 04:00 London, 11:00 Singapore, 13:00 Sydney, 12:00 Tokyo; Monday, 19 June 2017 20:00 Los Angeles, 23:00 Washington DC. For other times: https://goo.gl/VVRZYG The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update (if any) 4. Tentative consensus discussions: - Demonstrating technical capability only after evaluation - Technical Evaluation to be performed as aggregated / consolidated as feasible - Financial Evaluation to be performed in aggregation of a registry family - Universal Acceptance - IDNs Security and stability review - IDNs 1-char TLDs - IDN Variant TLDs - Name collision framework for subsequent procedures 5. Topic still requiring more discussion: (time permitting) - Name collisions in legacy and current gTLDs - 2-year readiness in name collision framework 6. AOB Although there are lots of topics to cover, we will stop at the hour and continue the discussion in the face-to-face session in Johannesburg. Most likely we won't be able to get into item 5. 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 is sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens

3 2

Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 08 June 2017 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 9, 2017

June 9, 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, 08 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4vtflufyed/<https://participate.icann.org/p4vtflufyed/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=155295b65430a30c…> 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/DxLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 08 June 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 08 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:We are always ready :) Steve Chan:FUll WG meeting on 12 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC Steve Chan:@Jeff, not yet, but soon Jeff Neuman:Ah...gave you all a scoop then :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):so sorry to be late phones were gremlin ridden and PABX needed reboot Julie Bisland:Hello Cheryl :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late! Jeff Neuman:Sounds like a Pink Floyd song Martin Sutton::-) Martin Sutton:Could we send out links to these presentations? avri doria:recordings and slides avaialble? Jeff Neuman:realted to this group, I think that is it....of course we also talked about the SLAs Martin Sutton:Thx Jeff Neuman:or the SLA misses Donna Austin, Neustar:Jeff, what SLAs are you referring to? Jeff Neuman:right Steve Chan:I think this is the presentation you're thinking of Jeff? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Jeff Neuman:Not just questions, but also is there additional testing we can/should recommend? Sarah L:@jeff +1 Jessica Hooper:Thanks Steve. The data points are on slide 23 of that presentation. Jeff Neuman:Slides are a little difficult to understand out of context. It would be good if Gustavo could give us a little write up on that. Jeff Neuman:What does consider variations of 2012 problemtatic strings mean? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, via the RySG RSP WG we have requested more detailed inforrmation from Francisco about the events referenced in Gonzalo's presentation. Steve Chan:@Jeff, Donna, perhaps you can coordinate to determine if there are additional questions we'd like answered by Francisco and Gustavo? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff and Donna - Who are Francisco and Gustavo? Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Or you can coordinate with Gustavo and Francisco and make sure they send the answers to both :) Jeff Neuman:@Anne - they are the technical registry liaisons at ICANN Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff. Jeff Neuman:In the brand TLDs (Spec 13), there is a required 2 year waiting period Jeff Neuman:Perhaps applying that general rule to all Steve Chan:@jeff happy to work with them, but not sure if the RySG questions will answer everything you're looking for. maybe we can determine if additional information is needed once we see francisco/gustavo's response. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Jeff Neuman:Identifying private namespaces is very difficult because they are by their nature "private" Jeff Neuman:An example of one such network was .gprs and .grx operated by the GSM Assocation (again a reference to a previous telephone world). That is a private ENUM-related service Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Does anyone know whether this ICANN report has ever been updated since 2014? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Sarah L:I just wanted to point out that the feedback from the RySG on CC2 re Name Collision was not subject to a vote Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):My understanding it that SSAC Advice to the Board is consensus based. Or at least there is a vote? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Sarah and Rubens, I think we can safely say that there were some differences of opinion regarding the 90 day interruption period. Julie Hedlund:@Anne: The SSAC does not vote, but presents its work as a consensus document. If the Board passes a resolution implementing SSAC advice then it's processes apply. Sarah L:@Rubens, Yes the CC2 feedback was created by a sub-set of the RySG - yes thank you Donna Jeff Neuman:@Donna - Difference in the number of days or having it at all? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, to some extent both. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Julie - that confirms my understanding that SSAC Advice to the Board is consensus advice. Jeff Neuman:SSAC Advice is not consensus advice as defined in the ICANN Agreements Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Not sure that is what you were saying, but wanted to be clear that there is a distinction Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: You are correct in that sense. But the SSAC considers that it develops its advice with its own internal consensus methods. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - are you referring to the GNSO PDP defnition of consensus advice? Jeff Neuman:I am just making the point that just because the SSAC gives advice, does not mean that advice needs to be followed Jeff Neuman:I am not saying it shouldnt be....just saying it doesnt have to be Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: That is exactly right Jeff and a very important point. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - failure to follow SSAC Advice in the 2012 round as to name collision resulted in huge waste of time and money. This is noted in the CC2 comment. Donna Austin, Neustar:The RySG provided comments on Name Collision on the CC2 and more recently there was a discussion prior to sending the RySG letter to the PDP WG. The wording agreed for the latter was: we believe there should be a formal review of the duration of the controlled interruption period, which was the key mitigation measure used for gTLDs in the 2012 round. It is unclear whether a 90 day period is necessary in order to identify and mitigate collisions. Such a review should include an analysis of TLDs that did require mitigation Jeff Neuman:@Anne - tjat is debateable. Jeff Neuman:The SSAC did not provide advice pre-2012 of name collissions other than you should look at the issue. It did give advice on the extent (if any) of any issues, how to fix the issues, etc. It just said essentially you may want to look at this issue Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Jeff - I realize that I disagree with you and Avri about this. Nevertheless, I am not the only one who holds this opinion. SSAC said it was serious and needed a hard look starting in 2010 with SSAC 045 I think. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Patrik mentioned this advice in his report to GNSO in Helsinki - it's in the transcript of the GNSO meeting. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):also to note from previous At-Large open-and-shut consequently ALAC Advice is strong support for the often conservative approach taken in SSAC Advice, noting also ALAC and SSAC meet at most ICANN Meetings to discuss such Advise and therefore probably hold great comfort and understanding of views and rationale Sarah L: I think there are a number of things that we should remember before we start thinking about reducing the length of the name collision period…… First of all, ICANN received at least 37 formal reports of name collisions, and from what I remember there were more that may not have been formally reported… a number of academics published illustrations of where controlled interruption as designed was not effective in dealing with a large and unpredictable number of attack scenarios and lets not forget that recommended actions such as an IPv6 solution for controlled interruption have still not at all been acted upon. Bearing all of that in mind, it seems apt that we would establish a new and informed position on this topic and not just…. dismiss the security implications of name collisions in lieu of expediency again. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):personal Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):try again... personally I agree Sarah Jeff Neuman:@Anne - SSAC 45 is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… . A reasonable reading of that hardly screams anything other than registries should be educated on the potential risks.,,,,, Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):AGree with Sarah Jeff Neuman:@Sarah, can you please send around those illustrations Sarah L:@Jeff, yes I can - will find them Jeff Neuman:It would be good to get answers in writing Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - SSAC 062 dated November 12, 2013. and asopted by the Board March 27, 2014. We need to keep in mind the existing Board resolutions on this topic. Nathaniel Edwards:Also agree with Sarah. Much of the collision conjecture is conclusory and could prove deeply regrettable if adopted as policy without significantly more information/data. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - my response was to your comment (and the SSAC's comment) that has we listened to the SSAC in 2010 we may not have wated so much time Jeff Neuman:The JAS Final report was expert advice avri doria:problen with expert advice is that sometimes you need more than one. JAS as a lot to defend in the way the last round went off. I do not think we can accept that as the only advice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Are you saying our policy development will be relying on the JAS Final Report from the 2012 round? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Avri - it doesn't have to be from JAS. My point is that if it is not formal advice that is paid for, it is not the same in terms of independent objective verification. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff. But we are suggesting changes to the JAS final report. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):IN addition, the JAS final report does not deal with how you vet new strings for the high risk assessment? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - IT was recommended that we look at variations on the 2012 round high risk strings. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Jeff - Why would you want to include a statement that policy adopted here should not be evaluated in relation to recent requests from applicants for the Board to resolve name collision issues in relation to .home, .corp, .mail? Why wouldn't they? Jeff Neuman:@Anne - you are making an assumption that there are future high risk strings Jeff Neuman:That may be the case....or may not be Jeff Neuman:perhaps that is a question Rubens Kuhl:.ltd, .ltda also corporate identifiers, but .corp has an additional issue as Microsoft suggested using .corp... and that doesn't translate to other languages. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Current advice from JAS and SSAC says we do need to consider there could be other high risk strings. Why do you want to discount that? Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Looking at 2012 applied for strings in not withn our jurisdiction or within our charter avri doria:good presentation. bye. Julie Bisland:The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone and especially Rubens today... bye for now then... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 Sub Team Meeting 08 June
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 June. 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 below. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June 1. Full Working Group Update -- Our next meeting is Monday, 12 June at 20:00 UTC. We are going to go over our plans for ICANN59 in Johannesburg including the Geo Names sessions. -- We will talk about the notion of first come, first serve, versions rounds, versus predictable application windows. -- ICANN staff has taken the comments from CC2 and sorted them into documents corresponding to the work tracks and they will send that out. 2. Recap of WT4-related discussions during May events in Madrid Slide 6: --GDD Summit 09-11 May 2017 -- Listed on the slides are some sessions relating to Work Track 4. -- DNS primer could be useful to understand the inner working of the DNS and how collisions happen. -- ICANN DNS Symposium, 13 May -- three technical presentations: Garbage Traffic at the Root, Introduction to the OCTO Research Middlebox Lab, New Datasets Available for Colliding Domains -- most related to the Work Track 4 topics. Given by Jeff Schmidt from JAS Advisors. -- DNS OARC 26, 14-15 May: OARC Engineering Report, -- mention how the Day in the Life (DITL) machine is being updated; Dark Side of the DNS -- found instances of queries that were not real namecoin queries; attempt to disguise queries as namecoin. -- SLA misses or near-misses: presentation about the SLA misses almost triggering an EBERO. One of the possible linkages to Work Track 4 was presented by Donna Austin -- where could we have asked questions and additional testing that could have presented these misses from happening. This is a question to GDD and we might take this into Work Track 4. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-slam-13may17-en.pdf. In scope for Work Track 4. Some may have even gotten to the EBERO level, although ICANN had the discretion not to initiate EBERO. 3. Community Input on Name Collisions Slides 9: Input received on name collisions: JAS Advisors: -- Don't change the winning team -- Look into SLD collisions (notifications) -- Consider variations of 2012 problematic strings -- Use DITL and ORDINAL datasets SSAC -- Advice from previous advisories, but that still are applicable -- Create a "do not apply" list -- SAC045 -- Create an "exercise care" list -- Consider what to do with previously delegated TLDs -- Identify private namespaces -- Coordinate with IETF on special-use domain names (IETF also, problem statement last call). Discussion: -- No all agreements have a 2-year waiting period. Perhaps that is something this group could look at. There are parallels. Slide 10: Input received on name collisions: INTA: Avoid APD-type lists; if used, cannot contain trademarks RySG and gTLD Registries: -- Lack of predictability -- No need to extend 2-year, 2-hour readiness -- Reduce controlled-interruption period to 60 days -- Assess risk instead of just quantity Thomsen Trampedach: Initiate controlled interruption period sooner rather than later OCTO: Read out to DNS-OARC, IETF DNSOP, RIPE DNS-WG, TEG Slide 13: Name Collisions Framework For Subsequent Procedures (Aggregate Proposal 1/2) -- reading from the slide Slide 14: Name Collisions Framework For Subsequent Procedures (Aggregate Proposal 2/2) -- reading from the slide Discussion: -- Before the final names collisions framework came out a suggestion was made that ICANN.org could even contact providers before delegation -- is that a question we could submit to ICANN? ICANN refused to do that but didn't say why. Regardless of what the name collision period is when someone enters into a contract ICANN could "delegate" those strings. One response was that there weren't sure the collision would happen until the string was delegated. They could argue that this is not foreseen in the application including in the costs. -- Don't agree that this group should proceed without contracting for expert advice. Maybe some feel confident based on their understanding of the technology to make policy decisions, but others would not be able to analyze the advice that has been provided. Raise the procedural question again: developing questions for expert advice, seeking funds, and addressing these questions. -- There is a lot of cooperation in Internet engineering without contracting for expert advice. Much of the information is shared via relationships -- such as Requests for Comments. That is how we got here. We can hire advice if needed, but we should assume that because we haven't hired someone then we can't know that. We have JAS Advice, SSAC advice, that we already have. -- Strongly encourage that everyone read the JAS Advisor's final report. That is expert advice. They reviewed how everything went from the last round. If we want to develop certain recommendations -- such as shortening the 90-period -- then perhaps we could run that by an expert group, but we need to take into consideration the advice that is already provided. -- The strings in the 2012 round that have been reserved have been applied for and won't be eligible to be applied for new gTLDs. There is a concern that what we do here would apply retroactively to those high-risk strings, although we can make it clear that it doesn't. Don't start the issue from scratch but look at what has happend. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: In the brand TLDs (Spec 13), there is a required 2 year waiting period. Perhaps applying that general rule to all. Identifying private namespaces is very difficult because they are by their nature "private". An example of one such network was .gprs and .grx operated by the GSM Assocation (again a reference to a previous telephone world). That is a private ENUM-related service Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Does anyone know whether this ICANN report has ever been updated since 2014? https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-01aug… Donna Austin, Neustar: The RySG provided comments on Name Collision on the CC2 and more recently there was a discussion prior to sending the RySG letter to the PDP WG. The wording agreed for the latter was: we believe there should be a formal review of the duration of the controlled interruption period, which was the key mitigation measure used for gTLDs in the 2012 round. It is unclear whether a 90 day period is necessary in order to identify and mitigate collisions. Such a review should include an analysis of TLDs that did require mitigation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also to note from previous At-Large open-and-shut consequently ALAC Advice is strong support for the often conservative approach taken in SSAC Advice, noting also ALAC and SSAC meet at most ICANN Meetings to discuss such Advise and therefore probably hold great comfort and understanding of views and rationale Sarah L: I think there are a number of things that we should remember before we start thinking about reducing the length of the name collision period…… First of all, ICANN received at least 37 formal reports of name collisions, and from what I remember there were more that may not have been formally reported… a number of academics published illustrations of where controlled interruption as designed was not effective in dealing with a large and unpredictable number of attack scenarios and let’s not forget that recommended actions such as an IPv6 solution for controlled interruption have still not at all been acted upon. Bearing all of that in mind, it seems apt that we would establish a new and informed position on this topic and not just…. dismiss the security implications of name collisions in lieu of expediency again. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): try again... personally I agree Sarah Jeff Neuman: @Anne - SSAC 45 is here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-045-en.pdf. A reasonable reading of that hardly screams anything other than registries should be educated on the potential risks.,,,,, Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Sarah Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - SSAC 062 dated November 12, 2013. and asopted by the Board March 27, 2014. We need to keep in mind the existing Board resolutions on this topic. Nathaniel Edwards: Also agree with Sarah. Much of the collision conjecture is conclusory and could prove deeply regrettable if adopted as policy without significantly more information/data. Jeff Neuman: @Anne - my response was to your comment (and the SSAC's comment) that has we listened to the SSAC in 2010 we may not have waited so much time Jeff Neuman: The JAS Final report was expert advice avri doria: problen with expert advice is that sometimes you need more than one. JAS as a lot to defend in the way the last round went off. I do not think we can accept that as the only advice. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Are you saying our policy development will be relying on the JAS Final Report from the 2012 round? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Avri - it doesn't have to be from JAS. My point is that if it is not formal advice that is paid for, it is not the same in terms of independent objective verification. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff. But we are suggesting changes to the JAS final report. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): IN addition, the JAS final report does not deal with how you vet new strings for the high-risk assessment? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Jeff - Why would you want to include a statement that policy adopted here should not be evaluated in relation to recent requests from applicants for the Board to resolve name collision issues in relation to .home, .corp, .mail? Why wouldn't they? Jeff Neuman: @Anne - you are making an assumption that there are future high risk strings. That may be the case....or may not be. Perhaps that is a question Rubens Kuhl: .ltd, .ltda also corporate identifiers, but .corp has an additional issue as Microsoft suggested using .corp... and that doesn't translate to other languages. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Current advice from JAS and SSAC says we do need to consider there could be other high risk-string.

1 0

FW: WT4 Call Agenda
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Rubens et al, Looks as though my attachment of a zip file with apd reports caused some problems in delivery. Resending without apd reports attached. 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@01D2DFAF.5EDDA2E0] 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, June 07, 2017 4:54 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl'; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call Agenda Rubens, Regarding Items 4 and 5 of the agenda for Thursday’s call, I note that SSAC Advice as to name collisions is still in the “open” phase at the ICANN Board. The advice includes SSAC 062 - Phase 2 – “Evaluate and Consider” and SSAC 90 – Phase 1 “Request Understood” by the Board. Open advice from SSAC to the Board should not be lumped in with other CC2 comments. After all, this is the Security and Stability Advisory Committee to ICANN. There are also a number of comments to CC2 which express frustration at the process followed in the 2012 round given that application fees were paid and “unicorn” high collision risks were not identified until much later. To put it mildly, this was not an orderly process. Thus, I would say that this issue of “high risk” strings needs to be given priority by our Track 4 Team since it is a “threshold” issue for any applicant. If we don’t have individual string review, how can these high risk strings be identified in new applications? Did we learn anything from the 2012 round? (Put another way, this WG cannot afford to take the “ostrich” approach to the “unicorn” high risk TLD strings.) Although Jeff indicates the 2012 high risk TLDs (.home, .corp, .mail) are subject to “separate processes”, I believe that given the open SSAC Advice to the Board, these high risk “unicorn” applications (whether old or new) will likely all be considered by the Board on the same basis once a policy for the next round is determined based on policy recommendations provided by the GNSO and the Advisory Committees. Separately, both Interisle and JAS Advisors indicated that DITL (Day in the Life) statistics were the most valuable measures for assessing name collision risk. I think both also endorsed the 90 day Controlled Interruption period. Lastly, I note that the International Trademark Association has filed comments related to the fact that due to the Alternate Path to Delegation (“apd”) lists generated by the 2012 round, a number of brand names were blocked and were not subject to a second Sunrise when released. This is a significant issue for brand owners which also needs to be addressed as a policy matter. (See attached apd reports by TLD as of 12 November 2013.) I am hopeful that leadership for Sub Pro and for this Work Track will recognize that expert advice on these questions is needed. Accordingly, we should be soliciting estimates from qualified technical advisors and seeking funds in relation to obtaining advice on these highly technical questions. Looking forward to our call on Thursday. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D2DFAE.91B69010] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> 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 Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 7:33 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] WT4 Call Agenda Dear WT4 members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 - IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place for 60 minutes on Thursday, 8 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC, 22:00 Brussels, 21:00 London, 13:00 Los Angeles, 16:00 Washington DC; Friday, 9 May 2017 04:00 Singapore, 06:00 Sydney, 05:00 Tokyo. For other times: http://migre.me/wKRQg The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Recap of WT4-related discussions during May events in Madrid 4. New gTLDs Name Collisions Framework 5. Input received through CC2, and from JAS and OCTO messages 6. AOB 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 is sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & 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.

5 9