Fwd: ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions
Steve, Emily, Julie; (sent via WT4 list) Can we ask compliance to drill down the 45 TLDs where they found controlled interruption wildcards still in place per registry service provider ? Not mentioning names of RSPs or ROs, just something like RSP 1 - 32 TLDs RSP 2 - 10 TLDs RSP 3 - 3 TLDs Thanks, Rubens
Início da mensagem encaminhada:
De: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Assunto: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions Data: 12 de setembro de 2017 21:07:21 BRT Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/compliance-update-jun17-en.pdf
At the end of page 3: "This quarter, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team also processed referrals from ICANN Technical Services regarding controlled interruption wildcard record violations. Approximately 45 TLDs were found to have activated names (other than nic.tld) in the DNS, while controlled interruption wildcard records continued to exist in their zone file."
It seems a high number of TLDs are still having issues with the 2012-round Name Collision Framework, long after delegation. This specific data point suggests that one of the suggested modifications, having ICANN or an ICANN contractor run the process before the TLD is delegated to the approved applicant, would not only address the time-to-market problem seen by registries but also improve compliance with the framework as designed.
We should note though that this report doesn't mention distribution by registry service provider; all 45 TLDs could share a single back-end for all we know.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
Dear Rubens, Certainly. We will submit a request to Contractual Compliance to seek this information. Best, Steve On 9/14/17, 10:53 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rubens Kuhl" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rubensk@nic.br> wrote: Steve, Emily, Julie; (sent via WT4 list) Can we ask compliance to drill down the 45 TLDs where they found controlled interruption wildcards still in place per registry service provider ? Not mentioning names of RSPs or ROs, just something like RSP 1 - 32 TLDs RSP 2 - 10 TLDs RSP 3 - 3 TLDs Thanks, Rubens > >> Início da mensagem encaminhada: >> >> De: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> >> Assunto: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions >> Data: 12 de setembro de 2017 21:07:21 BRT >> Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/compliance-update-jun17-en.pdf >> >> At the end of page 3: >> "This quarter, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team also processed referrals from ICANN Technical Services regarding controlled interruption wildcard record violations. Approximately 45 TLDs were found to have activated names (other than nic.tld) in the DNS, while controlled interruption wildcard records continued to exist in their zone file." >> >> It seems a high number of TLDs are still having issues with the 2012-round Name Collision Framework, long after delegation. This specific data point suggests that one of the suggested modifications, having ICANN or an ICANN contractor run the process before the TLD is delegated to the approved applicant, would not only address the time-to-market problem seen by registries but also improve compliance with the framework as designed. >> >> We should note though that this report doesn't mention distribution by registry service provider; all 45 TLDs could share a single back-end for all we know. >> >> >> Rubens >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 > _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
Rubens, WT4 Members, In response to the request for data below, please find the attached response from ICANN Contractual Compliance. This response has also been added to the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw Best, Steve On 9/14/17, 10:56 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Chan" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear Rubens, Certainly. We will submit a request to Contractual Compliance to seek this information. Best, Steve On 9/14/17, 10:53 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rubens Kuhl" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rubensk@nic.br> wrote: Steve, Emily, Julie; (sent via WT4 list) Can we ask compliance to drill down the 45 TLDs where they found controlled interruption wildcards still in place per registry service provider ? Not mentioning names of RSPs or ROs, just something like RSP 1 - 32 TLDs RSP 2 - 10 TLDs RSP 3 - 3 TLDs Thanks, Rubens > >> Início da mensagem encaminhada: >> >> De: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> >> Assunto: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions >> Data: 12 de setembro de 2017 21:07:21 BRT >> Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/compliance-update-jun17-en.pdf >> >> At the end of page 3: >> "This quarter, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team also processed referrals from ICANN Technical Services regarding controlled interruption wildcard record violations. Approximately 45 TLDs were found to have activated names (other than nic.tld) in the DNS, while controlled interruption wildcard records continued to exist in their zone file." >> >> It seems a high number of TLDs are still having issues with the 2012-round Name Collision Framework, long after delegation. This specific data point suggests that one of the suggested modifications, having ICANN or an ICANN contractor run the process before the TLD is delegated to the approved applicant, would not only address the time-to-market problem seen by registries but also improve compliance with the framework as designed. >> >> We should note though that this report doesn't mention distribution by registry service provider; all 45 TLDs could share a single back-end for all we know. >> >> >> Rubens >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 > _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
Thanks Steve. It looks as though we may be missing SSAC 90 as to name collisions. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 5:19 PM To: Rubens Kuhl; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Fwd: ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions Rubens, WT4 Members, In response to the request for data below, please find the attached response from ICANN Contractual Compliance. This response has also been added to the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw Best, Steve On 9/14/17, 10:56 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Chan" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear Rubens, Certainly. We will submit a request to Contractual Compliance to seek this information. Best, Steve On 9/14/17, 10:53 AM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rubens Kuhl" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rubensk@nic.br> wrote: Steve, Emily, Julie; (sent via WT4 list) Can we ask compliance to drill down the 45 TLDs where they found controlled interruption wildcards still in place per registry service provider ? Not mentioning names of RSPs or ROs, just something like RSP 1 - 32 TLDs RSP 2 - 10 TLDs RSP 3 - 3 TLDs Thanks, Rubens > >> Início da mensagem encaminhada: >> >> De: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> >> Assunto: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] ICANN Compliance x Name Collisions >> Data: 12 de setembro de 2017 21:07:21 BRT >> Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/compliance-update-jun17-en.pdf >> >> At the end of page 3: >> "This quarter, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team also processed referrals from ICANN Technical Services regarding controlled interruption wildcard record violations. Approximately 45 TLDs were found to have activated names (other than nic.tld) in the DNS, while controlled interruption wildcard records continued to exist in their zone file." >> >> It seems a high number of TLDs are still having issues with the 2012-round Name Collision Framework, long after delegation. This specific data point suggests that one of the suggested modifications, having ICANN or an ICANN contractor run the process before the TLD is delegated to the approved applicant, would not only address the time-to-market problem seen by registries but also improve compliance with the framework as designed. >> >> We should note though that this report doesn't mention distribution by registry service provider; all 45 TLDs could share a single back-end for all we know. >> >> >> Rubens >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 > _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list 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.
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan