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

 

 

 

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