Rubens, If you check the transcripts, you will find that I first raised consideration of .home, .corp, and .mail in a F2F meeting. At that time, no one said it was “out of scope.” That position was developed later. Later in a call of WT4, I raised this again. You and Jeff said it was out of scope. Then at a face-to-face meeting, Jordyn Buchanan also raised the possibility of applying the newly-developed Name Collision Framework to the 2012 TLDs that are on hold and said he thought it would make sense for the new framework to apply. In that same F2F meeting, you said we certainly would not object as a group to that, though I personally don’t recall when a consensus may have been developed on that point. Avri has written publicly about this topic. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in her blog in 2016: [cid:image003.png@01D3437C.8583CF10] See full text of blog here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160302_whatever_happened_with_namespace_coll... I don’t think it serves the community for us to be burying our heads in the sand here. The status of the applications for .home, .corp, and .mail is “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. If there is no technical analysis in terms of degree of risk in relation to these three Top Level Domains that are frozen, we are developing policy for Subsequent Procedures while totally ignoring past experience. Who does that? These TLDs would HAVE to form part of that analysis in order for our recommendations to have any credibility whatsoever. The question would be: Do they fall under “DO NOT APPLY” or some other category and how are we setting the standards for “Do Not Apply” as well as low, medium, and high risk domains? Thus far, we have NO PROGRESS in the Subteam on describing these categories and we are not seeking any paid independent technical advice on this. This has nothing to do with “the best things in life (like family and friends) are free” and it will cause further delay in the process. It should be quite obvious here that paid independent technical advice is needed to establish a Name Collision Framework for Subsequent Procedures and that any reasonable standard setting for that framework would take into account what happened in this arena in the 2012 round. 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@01D34672.6BEC9840] 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: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:52 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 On Oct 12, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks for clarifying that Kristina. The home page for the DNS-OARC does not make a distinction as to the particular entity: https://www.dns-oarc.net/ Nevertheless, mentioning applicants for a frozen TLD was apparently a major “faux pas” on my part and I apologize. To be clear, I personally have a very high regard for both Amazon and Google and their representatives at ICANN and believe they operate at the highest level of integrity. I will add the same level of regard to representatives of those companies at DNS-OARC, including assuming positions that contradicts the interest of other business units of their employers, although certainly being what they believe to be in the best interest of their corporations. Simple math: if someone breaks the Internet, Google loses USD 8 mi an hour in AdWords, Amazon loses USD 18 mi an hour in lost sales. I only mentioned this funding status because several have commented that any new name collision framework could also be applied to applications that were not permitted to go forward in 2012 due to name collision issues. The Board received a letter from some other applicants about this back in August of 2016: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/home-registry-inc-et-al... I remember commenting this, but I wouldn't call one person "several". The Board responded as follows to that letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-home-registr... So it’s easy to see why the Board would want to consider applying the new Name Collision Framework recommended by the GNSO Sub Pro PDP (and presumably to be adopted by the GNSO in a recommendation to the Board) to 2012 round applications that are frozen and still pending (per the public record). Although they might consider doing it, they haven't requested it, different from closed generics; so because it's not in our charter, we can't factor it in our decision. We can reckon it might have an effect, but our only consideration needs to be subsequent procedures. For anyone in the subgroup who does not know, the current status of .home, .corp, and .mail is listed at the ICANN website as “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. Please see public records pasted below. For existing Framework provisions discussing why these names are frozen, see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14... ). Just to be clear, it's the finalisation of the 2012-round name collision framework that is preventing those 3 applications from either moving forward or being terminated, not the subsequent procedures one. And in full disclosure, GDD never mentioned to me they were relying in our ongoing work to close that gap in the 2012-round... they seem to have a healthy interest in following the process, but all conversations mentioned subsequent procedures. If they are indeed waiting for us, they are keeping that to themselves. Once again, I would recommend that the subgroup contract for paid independent technical advice on the proposed new name collision framework as was the case in connection with the names that were frozen in the 2012 round. I do not know why we are further delaying in this regard, especially since we apparently want to adopt three categories of risk – low, medium, and high. This will definitely require professional, paid, and independent technical advice in my opinion. We have gone thru this in the past and nothing has changed that would make the decision change at this point. As the saying goes, the best things in life are free... but if we can't get the best and need to settle for what can get, so be it. 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.

Rubens and Cheryl, In addition to my request for independent paid technical advice as to the proposed Name Collision Framework and the 4 categories of TLDs (rated as to namespace collision risk from DO NOT APPLY to low, medium, and high risk) that are being proposed in Work Track 4 of Sub Pro, I would like to confirm with the Co-Chairs of Work Track 4 that the proposed Name Collision Framework was forwarded to ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee for comment. I believe the SSAC recommended the “DO NOT APPLY” Category in one of their reports to the Board. (SSAC 90?) We should be seeking SSAC input on the rest of the Framework in the same manner as we did with IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC. But perhaps this was already done back in August when we sought the advice of IETF/IAB (as recommended by SSAC), and RIPE and DNS-OARC? A link to a summary you sent out to RIPE in August appears here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2017-August/003448.html Did we send this to SSAC for input? My general points are (1) Work Track 4 should be consulting SSAC on a new Name Collision Framework in addition to IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC and (2) We should have independent paid technical advice on the proposed four categories of risk for a TLD, and should know what categories .home, .corp., and .mail fall in so that past experience informs future policy. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D3467B.52A170F0] 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: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: avri doria; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 Importance: High On Oct 16, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens, If you check the transcripts, you will find that I first raised consideration of .home, .corp, and .mail in a F2F meeting. At that time, no one said it was “out of scope.” That position was developed later. The output of the discussion group and the new charter of our WG both predate any F2F discussions... so we can't call it of developed later. Perhaps realised later. Later in a call of WT4, I raised this again. You and Jeff said it was out of scope. Then at a face-to-face meeting, Jordyn Buchanan also raised the possibility of applying the newly-developed Name Collision Framework to the 2012 TLDs that are on hold and said he thought it would make sense for the new framework to apply. In that same F2F meeting, you said we certainly would not object as a group to that, though I personally don’t recall when a consensus may have been developed on that point. We don't have to reach a consensus on out-of-scope topics, because we are not discussing them. Whoever have to decide on them, also have to figure out a decision making process for it. Avri has written publicly about this topic. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in her blog in 2016: Which said "the community", not the SubPro PDP, CCT-RT, RPM-PDP or any of other ongoing review efforts. <image001.png> See full text of blog here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160302_whatever_happened_with_namespace_coll... I don’t think it serves the community for us to be burying our heads in the sand here. The status of the applications for .home, .corp, and .mail is “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. If there is no technical analysis in terms of degree of risk in relation to these three Top Level Domains that are frozen, we are developing policy for Subsequent Procedures while totally ignoring past experience. Who does that? These TLDs would HAVE to form part of that analysis in order for our recommendations to have any credibility whatsoever. We are not ignoring past experience, we are just not charged to decide on the fate of those TLDs. Actually, past experience is exactly what drove us to where we are. The question would be: Do they fall under “DO NOT APPLY” or some other category and how are we setting the standards for “Do Not Apply” as well as low, medium, and high risk domains? Thus far, we have NO PROGRESS in the Subteam on describing these categories and we are not seeking any paid independent technical advice on this. This has nothing to do with “the best things in life (like family and friends) are free” and it will cause further delay in the process. It should be quite obvious here that paid independent technical advice is needed to establish a Name Collision Framework for Subsequent Procedures and that any reasonable standard setting for that framework would take into account what happened in this arena in the 2012 round. Not only family and friends; Internet technology is now at its RFC 8269, so more than 8 thousand technical documents have been developed without paid technical advice, just the volunteer work of people willing to discuss the theme. Add to that most ICANN consensus policies (where I only remember legal advice or market research being paid for), W3C technical references and we have the overwhelming majority of technical work in the field have been developed through the way you think won't work in case. As a well-known leader once said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing". What is clear to me is that the interests of the .home/.corp/.mail applicants would be better served by what you suggest. But since they do not align with the interests of the WT or the WG, we can't do anything about them. 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.

From the SSAC Charter: [cid:image001.png@01D34680.CCF91330] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D34680.CD1F5FE0] 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: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:56 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: avri doria; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 Anne, Outreach efforts were done for organisations outside the ICANN community. Those efforts usually do not apply for consultations within the community, like ccNSO, SSAC, ALAC or GAC, that have knowledge of the ongoing efforts of other SOs and ACs; but we know that at least one SSAC member (John Levine) follows WT4 and has sometimes answered messages in the mailing list and attended our calls, and the overlap between SSAC membership and IETF, RIPE DNS WG and DNS-OARC are also high, so I don't think the current ideas will sound new to them. But as for SSAC specifically, we need to remember that they can't answer us anything except by SSAC documents, so it needs to be something more milestone-based than something interactive, due to the way SSAC operates. Publishing the Draft Report will likely be a good moment for SSAC to comment, and that be taken into account for the Final Report; but any feedback from SSAC members, not to be tagged as an SSAC position, is and will be very welcome. The other two points listed as (2) are repetitions that I will save Internet bandwidth not restating. Rubens On Oct 16, 2017, at 5:36 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens and Cheryl, In addition to my request for independent paid technical advice as to the proposed Name Collision Framework and the 4 categories of TLDs (rated as to namespace collision risk from DO NOT APPLY to low, medium, and high risk) that are being proposed in Work Track 4 of Sub Pro, I would like to confirm with the Co-Chairs of Work Track 4 that the proposed Name Collision Framework was forwarded to ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee for comment. I believe the SSAC recommended the “DO NOT APPLY” Category in one of their reports to the Board. (SSAC 90?) We should be seeking SSAC input on the rest of the Framework in the same manner as we did with IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC. But perhaps this was already done back in August when we sought the advice of IETF/IAB (as recommended by SSAC), and RIPE and DNS-OARC? A link to a summary you sent out to RIPE in August appears here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2017-August/003448.html Did we send this to SSAC for input? My general points are (1) Work Track 4 should be consulting SSAC on a new Name Collision Framework in addition to IETF, RIPE, and DNS-OARC and (2) We should have independent paid technical advice on the proposed four categories of risk for a TLD, and should know what categories .home, .corp., and .mail fall in so that past experience informs future policy. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image002.png> 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: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: avri doria; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017 Importance: High On Oct 16, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens, If you check the transcripts, you will find that I first raised consideration of .home, .corp, and .mail in a F2F meeting. At that time, no one said it was “out of scope.” That position was developed later. The output of the discussion group and the new charter of our WG both predate any F2F discussions... so we can't call it of developed later. Perhaps realised later. Later in a call of WT4, I raised this again. You and Jeff said it was out of scope. Then at a face-to-face meeting, Jordyn Buchanan also raised the possibility of applying the newly-developed Name Collision Framework to the 2012 TLDs that are on hold and said he thought it would make sense for the new framework to apply. In that same F2F meeting, you said we certainly would not object as a group to that, though I personally don’t recall when a consensus may have been developed on that point. We don't have to reach a consensus on out-of-scope topics, because we are not discussing them. Whoever have to decide on them, also have to figure out a decision making process for it. Avri has written publicly about this topic. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in her blog in 2016: Which said "the community", not the SubPro PDP, CCT-RT, RPM-PDP or any of other ongoing review efforts. <image001.png> See full text of blog here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160302_whatever_happened_with_namespace_coll... I don’t think it serves the community for us to be burying our heads in the sand here. The status of the applications for .home, .corp, and .mail is “CONTENTION SET ON HOLD PENDING NAME COLLISION FRAMEWORK FINALIZATION”. If there is no technical analysis in terms of degree of risk in relation to these three Top Level Domains that are frozen, we are developing policy for Subsequent Procedures while totally ignoring past experience. Who does that? These TLDs would HAVE to form part of that analysis in order for our recommendations to have any credibility whatsoever. We are not ignoring past experience, we are just not charged to decide on the fate of those TLDs. Actually, past experience is exactly what drove us to where we are. The question would be: Do they fall under “DO NOT APPLY” or some other category and how are we setting the standards for “Do Not Apply” as well as low, medium, and high risk domains? Thus far, we have NO PROGRESS in the Subteam on describing these categories and we are not seeking any paid independent technical advice on this. This has nothing to do with “the best things in life (like family and friends) are free” and it will cause further delay in the process. It should be quite obvious here that paid independent technical advice is needed to establish a Name Collision Framework for Subsequent Procedures and that any reasonable standard setting for that framework would take into account what happened in this arena in the 2012 round. Not only family and friends; Internet technology is now at its RFC 8269, so more than 8 thousand technical documents have been developed without paid technical advice, just the volunteer work of people willing to discuss the theme. Add to that most ICANN consensus policies (where I only remember legal advice or market research being paid for), W3C technical references and we have the overwhelming majority of technical work in the field have been developed through the way you think won't work in case. As a well-known leader once said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing". What is clear to me is that the interests of the .home/.corp/.mail applicants would be better served by what you suggest. But since they do not align with the interests of the WT or the WG, we can't do anything about them. 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. ________________________________ 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.