Thanks Rubens. Not sure I get the logic of this in relation to applicants asking the Board to change the policy set up in the Framework. Bears further discussion I think. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14... (See Paragraph 5) In connection with the next call (or rather the one after that given that Patrik will be presenting in our next call), I really think our WT needs to focus on the existing Name Collision Occurrence Framework paragraph by paragraph. The Framework was not developed within a GNSO policy process, but it IS the existing policy until it is replaced by something. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2C8F8.D84E9940] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 2:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Jeff Neuman; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr@gmail.com) Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017 On May 9, 2017, at 9:44 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Rubens. I do not think that these specific TLD strings have to be specifically mentioned in our Charter. They simply fall under the category of name collisions, clearly within scope. As you point out, it is not because something became an issue in the first round that it falls outside our remit. The topic should have been mentioned, not the specific strings. Like "Closed Generics" were mentioned applying to the 2012-round, even though not mentioning specific strings. This is what we have in the charter: "Name collisions: How should name collisions be incorporated into future new gTLD rounds? What measures may be needed to manage risks for 2012-round gTLDs beyond their 2 year anniversary of delegation, or gTLDs delegated prior to the 2012 round?" So, for 2012-round gTLDs, we can only look at measures for delegated gTLDs. At least with the charter as it is now. Don’t we say it’s the GNSO that makes policy, not the Board? You said that as to new applications for very risky names, “That's one of the policy questions I mentioned.” It makes no sense to me that cases of very risky name collision strings going forward are within the scope of Sub Pro but that very risky name collision issues identified with .home, .corp, and .mail are dealt with directly by the Board. Shouldn’t the same consistent policy (developed according to a Multi-Stakeholder bottom-up process with ample opportunity for public comment) apply to very risk name collision strings regardless of application date? The next procedures might have very different application rules, depending on the outcome of this PDP; those applications were made with the 2012 rules, and unless for topics specifically punted for this PDP (like closed generics), they are the ones in force, not what we discuss here. Same applies for other contentious issues like community applications, where some 2012 applications are still pending but will be judged against the 2012 criteria. Why would the Board be in charge of name collision mitigation policy for very risky names in connection with 2012 round applications, while Sub Pro and GNSO are in charge of name collision mitigation policy for very risky names not yet applied for? Actually, the Board acted within what was specified in the 2007 GNSO Policy for such issues. Principle D: "A set of technical criteria must be used for assessing a new gTLD registry applicant to minimise the risk of harming the operational stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet." Recommendation 4: "Strings must not cause any technical instability." We might have disagreements with the implementation, specially since it at least contradicted principle A (predictability), but we didn't have in 2012 the implementation oversight mechanisms that are mandated since September 2015, output of a work that started exactly due to implementation issues seen in the 2012-round. 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.