Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=OiU-h0Z-64UoNvH3LoeG_o396GU0v_p74rQIlQ2b1k8&s=Qgtj2RhJxG-FNLJaFth3Hsnwdxy6TX1m8E0ILcSJ0vI&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle
During that call, Jim asked why I suggested those edits to the SAC 090 response. I answered in the audio bridge but he preferred them in writing... here they are: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature. In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home, .corp, and .mail for instance. Rubens edit: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature, except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. The first change is to add that we do have two exceptions in SubPro were the charter is not forward-looking; those two have been debated in the discussion group and added to our charter, so we can and should comment about them, namely closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs. The second change is based on the different views in the technical community as for the risk of .mail; a good number of people thinks that not-dotless .mail (which is a given since gTLDs do not allow dotless responses) does not pose the same level of risk that .home and .corp do, although requiring some sort of mitigation process that is different from the standard framework. Just to remember, the standard framework actually requires a wildcard response, and that might activate, unless carefully written DNS software is deployed, a dot-less response. The differentiation of those two types of risk is already baked into SubPro recommendations, that specified both a "do not apply" and an "exercise care" list. The simpler change to match this is to remove the reference to .mail from the text, since it's not even in our purview to decide the fate of .home, .corp and .mail. Rubens
Em 18 de set de 2018, à(s) 08:39:000, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC.
Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ <https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/>
Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...>
Thank you. Kind regards,
Michelle
<Attendance & AC chat Sub Pro 17 Sep 2018 .pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Rubens, As you have noted, .home, .corp, and .mail are out of scope for the PDP so an edit to delete .mail from the last statement is inappropriate because you are making a substantive comment on the risk associated with .mail. As a compromise, I would suggest we delete the “such as” clause and simply say “Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk.” The above suggestion avoids a substantive comment on matters which are out of scope for this PDP. 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@01D450C6.3E90CA10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:33 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC During that call, Jim asked why I suggested those edits to the SAC 090 response. I answered in the audio bridge but he preferred them in writing... here they are: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature. In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home, .corp, and .mail for instance. Rubens edit: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature, except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. The first change is to add that we do have two exceptions in SubPro were the charter is not forward-looking; those two have been debated in the discussion group and added to our charter, so we can and should comment about them, namely closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs. The second change is based on the different views in the technical community as for the risk of .mail; a good number of people thinks that not-dotless .mail (which is a given since gTLDs do not allow dotless responses) does not pose the same level of risk that .home and .corp do, although requiring some sort of mitigation process that is different from the standard framework. Just to remember, the standard framework actually requires a wildcard response, and that might activate, unless carefully written DNS software is deployed, a dot-less response. The differentiation of those two types of risk is already baked into SubPro recommendations, that specified both a "do not apply" and an "exercise care" list. The simpler change to match this is to remove the reference to .mail from the text, since it's not even in our purview to decide the fate of .home, .corp and .mail. Rubens Em 18 de set de 2018, à(s) 08:39:000, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=OiU-h0Z-64UoNvH3LoeG_o396GU0v_p74rQIlQ2b1k8&s=Qgtj2RhJxG-FNLJaFth3Hsnwdxy6TX1m8E0ILcSJ0vI&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle <Attendance & AC chat Sub Pro 17 Sep 2018 .pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.
I think this represents a good balanced compromise. I have one further edit, which I will put in red: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature1. , except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk. a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. 1The Working Group notes that there are a limited number of items in the charter that may have application to current TLDs, including both closed generics and certain aspects of name collisions, but these exceptions within the charter do not apply here. 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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:43 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC Rubens, As you have noted, .home, .corp, and .mail are out of scope for the PDP so an edit to delete .mail from the last statement is inappropriate because you are making a substantive comment on the risk associated with .mail. As a compromise, I would suggest we delete the “such as” clause and simply say “Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk.” The above suggestion avoids a substantive comment on matters which are out of scope for this PDP. Anne * Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D450F1.7AE3D900] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:33 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC During that call, Jim asked why I suggested those edits to the SAC 090 response. I answered in the audio bridge but he preferred them in writing... here they are: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature. In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home, .corp, and .mail for instance. Rubens edit: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature, except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. The first change is to add that we do have two exceptions in SubPro were the charter is not forward-looking; those two have been debated in the discussion group and added to our charter, so we can and should comment about them, namely closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs. The second change is based on the different views in the technical community as for the risk of .mail; a good number of people thinks that not-dotless .mail (which is a given since gTLDs do not allow dotless responses) does not pose the same level of risk that .home and .corp do, although requiring some sort of mitigation process that is different from the standard framework. Just to remember, the standard framework actually requires a wildcard response, and that might activate, unless carefully written DNS software is deployed, a dot-less response. The differentiation of those two types of risk is already baked into SubPro recommendations, that specified both a "do not apply" and an "exercise care" list. The simpler change to match this is to remove the reference to .mail from the text, since it's not even in our purview to decide the fate of .home, .corp and .mail. Rubens Em 18 de set de 2018, à(s) 08:39:000, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=OiU-h0Z-64UoNvH3LoeG_o396GU0v_p74rQIlQ2b1k8&s=Qgtj2RhJxG-FNLJaFth3Hsnwdxy6TX1m8E0ILcSJ0vI&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle <Attendance & AC chat Sub Pro 17 Sep 2018 .pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.
Jeff, This works for me. Rubens
Em 20 de set de 2018, à(s) 15:51:000, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> escreveu:
I think this represents a good balanced compromise. I have one further edit, which I will put in red:
Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature1. , except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk. a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance.
1The Working Group notes that there are a limited number of items in the charter that may have application to current TLDs, including both closed generics and certain aspects of name collisions, but these exceptions within the charter do not apply here.
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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:43 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Rubens, As you have noted, .home, .corp, and .mail are out of scope for the PDP so an edit to delete .mail from the last statement is inappropriate because you are making a substantive comment on the risk associated with .mail.
As a compromise, I would suggest we delete the “such as” clause and simply say “Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk.”
The above suggestion avoids a substantive comment on matters which are out of scope for this PDP.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:33 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC
During that call, Jim asked why I suggested those edits to the SAC 090 response. I answered in the audio bridge but he preferred them in writing... here they are:
Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature. In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home, .corp, and .mail for instance.
Rubens edit: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature, except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance.
The first change is to add that we do have two exceptions in SubPro were the charter is not forward-looking; those two have been debated in the discussion group and added to our charter, so we can and should comment about them, namely closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs.
The second change is based on the different views in the technical community as for the risk of .mail; a good number of people thinks that not-dotless .mail (which is a given since gTLDs do not allow dotless responses) does not pose the same level of risk that .home and .corp do, although requiring some sort of mitigation process that is different from the standard framework. Just to remember, the standard framework actually requires a wildcard response, and that might activate, unless carefully written DNS software is deployed, a dot-less response.
The differentiation of those two types of risk is already baked into SubPro recommendations, that specified both a "do not apply" and an "exercise care" list. The simpler change to match this is to remove the reference to .mail from the text, since it's not even in our purview to decide the fate of .home, .corp and .mail.
Rubens
Em 18 de set de 2018, à(s) 08:39:000, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org <mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> escreveu:
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC.
Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 <https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ <https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/>
Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...>
Thank you. Kind regards,
Michelle
<Attendance & AC chat Sub Pro 17 Sep 2018 .pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
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.
I’m fine with this revision. 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@01D45192.573ABF90] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:09 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff, This works for me. Rubens Em 20 de set de 2018, à(s) 15:51:000, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> escreveu: I think this represents a good balanced compromise. I have one further edit, which I will put in red: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature1. , except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk. a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. 1The Working Group notes that there are a limited number of items in the charter that may have application to current TLDs, including both closed generics and certain aspects of name collisions, but these exceptions within the charter do not apply here. 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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:43 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC Rubens, As you have noted, .home, .corp, and .mail are out of scope for the PDP so an edit to delete .mail from the last statement is inappropriate because you are making a substantive comment on the risk associated with .mail. As a compromise, I would suggest we delete the “such as” clause and simply say “Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent an unacceptable level of name collision risk.” The above suggestion avoids a substantive comment on matters which are out of scope for this PDP. Anne * Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:33 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC During that call, Jim asked why I suggested those edits to the SAC 090 response. I answered in the audio bridge but he preferred them in writing... here they are: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature. In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home, .corp, and .mail for instance. Rubens edit: Regarding part 3) of the recommendations, the PDP WG considers .home, .corp. and .mail to be out of scope for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is future looking in nature, except for items explicitly asked for in its charter (closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs). In the course of deliberations on Name Collisions, in section 2.7.8 of the Initial Report, the WG took SAC090 into account. The WG has not at this stage determined to formally recognize "private use" domains, though it provided preliminary recommendations on Name Collisions to seek to provide better guidance to applicants, while in large part supporting the continued adherance to the framework utilized during the 2012 round. Specifically, the WG preliminarily supports efforts to develop a data-driven "Do Not Apply" list, which would seek to prevent names that represent a similar level of risk to .home and .corp, for instance. The first change is to add that we do have two exceptions in SubPro were the charter is not forward-looking; those two have been debated in the discussion group and added to our charter, so we can and should comment about them, namely closed generics and name collisions in legacy gTLDs. The second change is based on the different views in the technical community as for the risk of .mail; a good number of people thinks that not-dotless .mail (which is a given since gTLDs do not allow dotless responses) does not pose the same level of risk that .home and .corp do, although requiring some sort of mitigation process that is different from the standard framework. Just to remember, the standard framework actually requires a wildcard response, and that might activate, unless carefully written DNS software is deployed, a dot-less response. The differentiation of those two types of risk is already baked into SubPro recommendations, that specified both a "do not apply" and an "exercise care" list. The simpler change to match this is to remove the reference to .mail from the text, since it's not even in our purview to decide the fate of .home, .corp and .mail. Rubens Em 18 de set de 2018, à(s) 08:39:000, Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter@icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aRhpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17sep18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p421jaknouc/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=OiU-h0Z-64UoNvH3LoeG_o396GU0v_p74rQIlQ2b1k8&s=Qgtj2RhJxG-FNLJaFth3Hsnwdxy6TX1m8E0ILcSJ0vI&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_R...> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle <Attendance & AC chat Sub Pro 17 Sep 2018 .pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Michelle DeSmyter -
Rubens Kuhl