Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that name collision policy as to .home, .corp, and .mail are “out of scope” for our group? If so, how would policy on these reserved strings be made? A letter was sent last August to the Board asking for the release of these names. How does that request fit into the policy-making process? Or are we saying the Board should respond to that letter with “Done deal in Round 1”. Has the Board responded to that August letter and could staff provide that to the list if so? A larger concern re “the next round” (if it’s a round) is whether there are other names that are similarly risky. And how can this be known in a timely manner? Given past experience, it appears there should be an orderly process for assessing name collision risk as to any particular TLD string BEFORE any other evaluation, objection, or string contention process kicks in. That way everyone (theoretically) saves time and money. How do we determine going forward which names pose unreasonable risk and which names will fit within an overall mitigation policy? Generally speaking, it seems the ultimate goal of the current policy-making activity re name collision in Subsequent Procedures would be to develop a new Framework document that replaces the old one. The existing Framework adopted by the New gTLD Program Committee for name collision is linked here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14... 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@01D2C5B0.F5F53710] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:47 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl'; 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 Thanks Anne for the note and for participating. You asked some great questions. Good to see JAS is still around. Just to clarify, I am not sure we were talking about rejecting any of the advice from JAS Advisors. In fact, I think we were agreeing with their advice completely. As part of the subsequent procedures PDP, I view .home, .corp and .mail out of scope. These were applications submitted during the 2012 round and are being handled through separate processes. Those cases will work out however the work out and for our purposes I believe that we were assuming that no one could apply for those names going forward because by the time the next application window comes around, either the names will (i) still be in dispute and therefore on hold, (ii) delegated to one of the 2012 applicants or (iii) permanently reserved. The discussion last night went to questions of (i) was controlled interruption the right solution and did it achieve its goals, (ii) are there other ways these can be achieved, (iii) is controlled interruption necessary going forward, (iv) if so, is 90 days the right amount of time or could it be shorter (as JAS alluded to in their final report), (v) Is the emergency solution still necessary and is 2 years the appropriate time frame for a registry to be “on call” [my words not theirs]. (vi) Are there other terms that due to their volume of DITL queries that should be “reserved” at the top-level? How do we determine if there are and what those strings are? There are probably other questions I missed, but I am not sure how any of this goes against the JAS advice. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 6:19 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 2017 Hi Rubens. Thanks for your careful and detailed presentation last night. (I learned a lot!) I can't tell whether my message sent afterward ever reached the list. ( I resent it myself after originally sending by mistake to the ntfy address but my own message never came in to my Inbox or my spam.) Jeff mentioned he did not know whether JAS Advisors was still around. They are apparently still around and still doing Internet security work. (See link below.) As mentioned during the call, I think we need an update from JAS to this group in order to deal properly with the policy-making process. After all, this was the basis for the New gTLD Program Committee action so if we change that recommendation, we need a basis for rejecting the expert advice they obtained other than the anecdotal observation that "we think JAS went overboard". This is especially true as to .home, .corp, and .mail. I realize this will cost money but have no idea how much. Can we get an estimate? Separately, many thanks to Steve Chan for following up with the GDD on the questions they have not yet answered re our work team. (And happy travels to those attending the GDD summit.) See: https://www.jasadvisors.com/ Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D2C5AE.69511AB0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:44 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Work Track 4 agenda for 4 May 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, 4 May 2017 at 03:00 UTC, 04:00 London, 05:00 Brussels; Wednesday, 3 May 2017 20:00 Los Angeles, 23:00 Washington. For other times: http://migre.me/wwanH The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Recap of name collision definitions and advices prior to 2012 application window 4. Recap of 2012-round collision measures (provisional and final) 5. Description of possible policy options expressed in CC2 questions 6. Differences between 2012 implementation and SAC066 SSAC Advice (time permitting) 7. 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 will be sent in the calendar invitation. Best, CLO & Rubens _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 ________________________________ 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.

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. 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? 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? Attached is the letter from Akram dealing with this topic. 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@01D2C8C2.05D80720] 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 6:06 AM 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 Hi Anne. Responses to both your messages inline. On May 6, 2017, at 12:05 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that name collision policy as to .home, .corp, and .mail are “out of scope” for our group? It's not in our charter, so it's out of scope as far as ICANN PDP rules go. Note that this is not due to belonging to a previous round, since we are indeed looking at at least 3 issues that applied for 2012 and legacy gTLDs, but due to not being listed in the charter. If so, how would policy on these reserved strings be made? A letter was sent last August to the Board asking for the release of these names. How does that request fit into the policy-making process? Or are we saying the Board should respond to that letter with “Done deal in Round 1”. Has the Board responded to that August letter and could staff provide that to the list if so? I believe that if a response was sent, it would have been published. A larger concern re “the next round” (if it’s a round) is whether there are other names that are similarly risky. And how can this be known in a timely manner? Given past experience, it appears there should be an orderly process for assessing name collision risk as to any particular TLD string BEFORE any other evaluation, objection, or string contention process kicks in. That way everyone (theoretically) saves time and money. That's one of the policy questions I mentioned. Hi Rubens. Thanks for your careful and detailed presentation last night. (I learned a lot!) People interested in more of it could take a look at these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sgaq6OYLX8 (Name collisions in legacy gTLDs) https://youtu.be/XRvk6ySPwTc?t=1h1m53s (NTAG and Interisle positions of the first name collision report) Jeff mentioned he did not know whether JAS Advisors was still around. They are apparently still around and still doing Internet security work. (See link below.) Unfortunately, the Org clogged what could be a simple consultation process, and made it to fail. Next time we try a different order of process and see if it works better. As mentioned during the call, I think we need an update from JAS to this group in order to deal properly with the policy-making process. After all, this was the basis for the New gTLD Program Committee action so if we change that recommendation, we need a basis for rejecting the expert advice they obtained other than the anecdotal observation that "we think JAS went overboard". This is especially true as to .home, .corp, and .mail. I realize this will cost money but have no idea how much. Can we get an estimate? Since we already clarified why this is not scope for the PDP, I have more liberty to express my personal opinions on this issue: I don't think JAS went overboard with .home and .corp. The problems with these strings are very hard to address, and it's quite possible a decades-long problem to solve, like cleaning up River Thames. But for .mail, the available evidence suggests a large collision problem for the dotless mail string, not for <names>.mail. Actually, mail.<TLD> is more of a concern, so some registries have prevented mail as a domain. So while the standardised framework would not work for .mail, devising a suitable framework is not that hard: just take out the dotless response from the wildcard controlled interruption. The .mail contract could have an extra provision where a dotless response, which is already not allowed, could trigger an EBERO transition in very little time. Att., 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.