Hi Jeff I agree that “this work” as contained in the Board Scorecard adopted SAC 90 does not necessarily mean the NCAP study. The Board took action to request that study from the SSAC, but so far it’s a “no go”. However, “this work” as described in Recommendations 1-3 covered by the Board resolution is MUCH broader in scope than any work done by Work Track 4 or any SubGroup of Subsequent Procedures. (The Board sent a letter to Subsequent Procedures about this and thus far, it has not been recirculated so it would be much appreciated if staff could circulate that letter.) May we please see the Board’s letter to Sub Pro informing us of its adoption of the SAC recommendations in relation to name collision risk? The fundamental procedural question here is to what degree Subsequent Procedures needs to take prior Board resolutions into account based on the Board’s letter to us. Rubens says “The Board can’t tell the GNSO what to do.” I think that is a bit unproductive since we get bottle-necked if the recommendations of the WG and the GNSO are not consistent with “this work” that was supposed to be done in accordance with a prior Board resolution adopting SAC 90 Advice. In the big picture, we also have to consider that the world is watching. The fact is that the GNSO is not required to consider the Global Public Interest. GNSO is primarily concerned with considering the interests of its stakeholder groups. You yourself have said that the public comments of established ICANN constituencies and advisory committees should be given more weight in the Final Report than concerns of other commenters. In this regard, keep in mind that the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council so its representation of the public interest is a step down from other GNSO stakeholders. Further, Leadership has not addressed how much weight will be given to the Recommendations of the CCT Review Team Final Report. The ICANN Board, on the other hand, is actually charged with the Global Public Interest in adopting policy. It cannot act in the interest of the Contracted Parties without getting “called on the carpet” at the ITU and on the world stage. Separately, many public commenters assumed NCAP would move forward. You have public comment from ALAC, the IPC, and others saying “defer to the SSAC on name collisions” at a time when it was assumed there would actually be an NCAP. Perhaps Sub Pro needs to reply to the Board’s letter to us and ask the ICANN Board for further guidance given all the circumstances. No way did Work Track 4 conduct all of the “this work” contained in Recommendations 1-3 adopted by the Board. And we are in the throes of whether or not to make a recommendation which is directly inconsistent with Recommendation 4 adopted by the Board. (ALAC, IPC, and others filed comment which agrees with SAC 90 Recommendation 4 not to add names to the root until collision risk is studied further.) If we had actually developed some sort of screening tool for “Do Not Apply” strings or some way to identify high risk strings during our work in Sub Pro, we could be making a solid recommendation about proceeding to the next round with a new Name Collision Framework to replace the old one.. I personally suggested several times in Work Track 4 work that we get a budget to hire a qualified third party consultant to undertake that work. Leadership rejected this notion as “unnecessary.” Now it appears we could be risking leaving “this work” to the “Implementation Phase” if SAC 90 Recommendation 4 is ignored. It seems very silly to me to have an applicant spend $185,000 and find out later that the string will not move forward. Name collision risk should be assessed early on and the applicant should get the fee back right away if the string cannot move forward. As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. If NCAP is dead, I think it is incumbent on Sub Pro to ACT NOW to get independent professional advice on the technical parameters and tests that should apply for each new string applied for and to get funding from ICANN to do so. It is critical that the testing and standards be developed by an independent entity. Further, an independent entity should be responsible for evaluating name collision risk mitigation plans submitted by individual applicants if that recommendation moves forward. As most on this WG already know well , the biggest risk associated with name collisions is not just arriving at the wrong site outside your server and is not a question of “threat to human life” (the only reporting requirement from 2012), it is rather the fact that the user can be intercepted on the way by phishing and other scams that defraud consumers. (See attached study.) 90 day controlled interruption is not an answer to this risk. Leaving the mitigation of this risk to individual negotiation between the registries and ICANN org on a string-by-string basis is also not an answer to this risk. Thank you, Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I want to try to be as clear as possible as to what I said because I believe it may not have come across well. Yes, the Board has accepted the recommendations of SAC 90 and in doing so has referred certain work to us. With respect to Recommendation 4, it states “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” (Emphasis added) * You have interpreted “this work” to mean the work of the NCAP, but that is not the case. * “This Work” refers to Recommendations 1-3 which does not say anything about the NCAP study. Granted that if the NCAP study were to be done, it would include Recommendations 1-3, plus a whole lot more. BUT, there are a number of other ways that Recommendations 1-3 could be implemented which involve work separate and apart from the NCAP study if the NCAP study were further delayed or never happens. For example, I believe that there are some sections of the Initial Report of our group that address some of the recommendations. I hope this is a little more clear. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne [cid:image001.png@01D4D4CF.CA5E3F40] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D4D4CF.CA5E3F40] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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.

Rubens – it is precisely because of ALL the “vested interests” (not just those you attribute to one party involved in the study I forwarded) that independent technical advice is needed. If the WG prefers to wait until the implementation phase to receive that advice and get public comment on it, then I think that will simply delay the next round and I had understood we were all concerned about the timing and “moving the ball forward”. In light of the public comment received which you reviewed with us in Tuesday’s call, as well as the Board’s prior adoption of SAC 90, I cannot imagine why anyone in the WG would want to delay the critical step of obtaining independent technical advice on the categories that will be recommended by the WG as to “DO NOT APPLY’, as well as the definitions applicable to “low, medium, and high” name collision risk - as contained in the Initial Report. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:23 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, What was suggested in the initial report was a minor evolution to the 2012 name collision framework, which was adopted by the Board. So imagining it doesn't serve global public interest or it wouldn't be approved by the Board is very far-fetched. Tool development is an implementation activity; we can't make the new AGB in the SubPro report. Not in name collisions, not in any other topic. As for things not happening your way, that's the way the multistakeholder model works. Most of it is not my way either, or any single person's way as well. I won't rehash WT4 discussions yet again, but interested readers not part of WT4 may find how this progressed at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/ . The attached report at your message is from a party known to have a vested interest in the matter, and known to be vocal during the 2012 round to the point of saying people would die due to name collisions. I'll leave this at that. Rubens On 8 Mar 2019, at 03:16, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff I agree that “this work” as contained in the Board Scorecard adopted SAC 90 does not necessarily mean the NCAP study. The Board took action to request that study from the SSAC, but so far it’s a “no go”. However, “this work” as described in Recommendations 1-3 covered by the Board resolution is MUCH broader in scope than any work done by Work Track 4 or any SubGroup of Subsequent Procedures. (The Board sent a letter to Subsequent Procedures about this and thus far, it has not been recirculated so it would be much appreciated if staff could circulate that letter.) May we please see the Board’s letter to Sub Pro informing us of its adoption of the SAC recommendations in relation to name collision risk? The fundamental procedural question here is to what degree Subsequent Procedures needs to take prior Board resolutions into account based on the Board’s letter to us. Rubens says “The Board can’t tell the GNSO what to do.” I think that is a bit unproductive since we get bottle-necked if the recommendations of the WG and the GNSO are not consistent with “this work” that was supposed to be done in accordance with a prior Board resolution adopting SAC 90 Advice. In the big picture, we also have to consider that the world is watching. The fact is that the GNSO is not required to consider the Global Public Interest. GNSO is primarily concerned with considering the interests of its stakeholder groups. You yourself have said that the public comments of established ICANN constituencies and advisory committees should be given more weight in the Final Report than concerns of other commenters. In this regard, keep in mind that the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council so its representation of the public interest is a step down from other GNSO stakeholders. Further, Leadership has not addressed how much weight will be given to the Recommendations of the CCT Review Team Final Report. The ICANN Board, on the other hand, is actually charged with the Global Public Interest in adopting policy. It cannot act in the interest of the Contracted Parties without getting “called on the carpet” at the ITU and on the world stage. Separately, many public commenters assumed NCAP would move forward. You have public comment from ALAC, the IPC, and others saying “defer to the SSAC on name collisions” at a time when it was assumed there would actually be an NCAP. Perhaps Sub Pro needs to reply to the Board’s letter to us and ask the ICANN Board for further guidance given all the circumstances. No way did Work Track 4 conduct all of the “this work” contained in Recommendations 1-3 adopted by the Board. And we are in the throes of whether or not to make a recommendation which is directly inconsistent with Recommendation 4 adopted by the Board. (ALAC, IPC, and others filed comment which agrees with SAC 90 Recommendation 4 not to add names to the root until collision risk is studied further.) If we had actually developed some sort of screening tool for “Do Not Apply” strings or some way to identify high risk strings during our work in Sub Pro, we could be making a solid recommendation about proceeding to the next round with a new Name Collision Framework to replace the old one.. I personally suggested several times in Work Track 4 work that we get a budget to hire a qualified third party consultant to undertake that work. Leadership rejected this notion as “unnecessary.” Now it appears we could be risking leaving “this work” to the “Implementation Phase” if SAC 90 Recommendation 4 is ignored. It seems very silly to me to have an applicant spend $185,000 and find out later that the string will not move forward. Name collision risk should be assessed early on and the applicant should get the fee back right away if the string cannot move forward. As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. If NCAP is dead, I think it is incumbent on Sub Pro to ACT NOW to get independent professional advice on the technical parameters and tests that should apply for each new string applied for and to get funding from ICANN to do so. It is critical that the testing and standards be developed by an independent entity. Further, an independent entity should be responsible for evaluating name collision risk mitigation plans submitted by individual applicants if that recommendation moves forward. As most on this WG already know well , the biggest risk associated with name collisions is not just arriving at the wrong site outside your server and is not a question of “threat to human life” (the only reporting requirement from 2012), it is rather the fact that the user can be intercepted on the way by phishing and other scams that defraud consumers. (See attached study.) 90 day controlled interruption is not an answer to this risk. Leaving the mitigation of this risk to individual negotiation between the registries and ICANN org on a string-by-string basis is also not an answer to this risk. Thank you, Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I want to try to be as clear as possible as to what I said because I believe it may not have come across well. Yes, the Board has accepted the recommendations of SAC 90 and in doing so has referred certain work to us. With respect to Recommendation 4, it states “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” (Emphasis added) * You have interpreted “this work” to mean the work of the NCAP, but that is not the case. * “This Work” refers to Recommendations 1-3 which does not say anything about the NCAP study. Granted that if the NCAP study were to be done, it would include Recommendations 1-3, plus a whole lot more. BUT, there are a number of other ways that Recommendations 1-3 could be implemented which involve work separate and apart from the NCAP study if the NCAP study were further delayed or never happens. For example, I believe that there are some sections of the Initial Report of our group that address some of the recommendations. I hope this is a little more clear. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com<http://attachment.Com> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne <image001.png> 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: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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. <Verisign Tech Report 2.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.

Thanks Rubens. There was NO advice obtained in Work Track 4 on defining the categories of “DO NOT APPLY”, Low Risk, Medium Risk and High Risk of name collisions. There was general input from JAS Advisors and others regarding the value of measuring Day in the Life (“DITL”) statistics. Given the public comment on the Initial Report as well as the fact that the Board adopted SAC 90, the WG would be wise to seek independent technical advice on the establishment of these specific categories in time to include that advice in the Final Report. Yes – this is my opinion. Thank you in advance for your leadership in treating my views and participation in a respectful manner. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 12:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, As you surely remember, WT4 solicited advice from many in the technical community outside of the ICANN walls, and got some from JAS Advisors (the consultant that provided the 2012 name collision framework for ICANN). We didn't get any from IETF, DNS-OARC, RIPE DNS-WG, which means that they are either happy with it or they don't care at all about the topic. What was decided to not be sought through was paid advice. Nobody wants to delay anything, but the expectation that without GNSO seeking paid advice there will be a delay is only your opinion at this point. Time will tell. Rubens On 9 Mar 2019, at 02:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Rubens – it is precisely because of ALL the “vested interests” (not just those you attribute to one party involved in the study I forwarded) that independent technical advice is needed. If the WG prefers to wait until the implementation phase to receive that advice and get public comment on it, then I think that will simply delay the next round and I had understood we were all concerned about the timing and “moving the ball forward”. In light of the public comment received which you reviewed with us in Tuesday’s call, as well as the Board’s prior adoption of SAC 90, I cannot imagine why anyone in the WG would want to delay the critical step of obtaining independent technical advice on the categories that will be recommended by the WG as to “DO NOT APPLY’, as well as the definitions applicable to “low, medium, and high” name collision risk - as contained in the Initial Report. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:23 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, What was suggested in the initial report was a minor evolution to the 2012 name collision framework, which was adopted by the Board. So imagining it doesn't serve global public interest or it wouldn't be approved by the Board is very far-fetched. Tool development is an implementation activity; we can't make the new AGB in the SubPro report. Not in name collisions, not in any other topic. As for things not happening your way, that's the way the multistakeholder model works. Most of it is not my way either, or any single person's way as well. I won't rehash WT4 discussions yet again, but interested readers not part of WT4 may find how this progressed at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/ . The attached report at your message is from a party known to have a vested interest in the matter, and known to be vocal during the 2012 round to the point of saying people would die due to name collisions. I'll leave this at that. Rubens On 8 Mar 2019, at 03:16, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff I agree that “this work” as contained in the Board Scorecard adopted SAC 90 does not necessarily mean the NCAP study. The Board took action to request that study from the SSAC, but so far it’s a “no go”. However, “this work” as described in Recommendations 1-3 covered by the Board resolution is MUCH broader in scope than any work done by Work Track 4 or any SubGroup of Subsequent Procedures. (The Board sent a letter to Subsequent Procedures about this and thus far, it has not been recirculated so it would be much appreciated if staff could circulate that letter.) May we please see the Board’s letter to Sub Pro informing us of its adoption of the SAC recommendations in relation to name collision risk? The fundamental procedural question here is to what degree Subsequent Procedures needs to take prior Board resolutions into account based on the Board’s letter to us. Rubens says “The Board can’t tell the GNSO what to do.” I think that is a bit unproductive since we get bottle-necked if the recommendations of the WG and the GNSO are not consistent with “this work” that was supposed to be done in accordance with a prior Board resolution adopting SAC 90 Advice. In the big picture, we also have to consider that the world is watching. The fact is that the GNSO is not required to consider the Global Public Interest. GNSO is primarily concerned with considering the interests of its stakeholder groups. You yourself have said that the public comments of established ICANN constituencies and advisory committees should be given more weight in the Final Report than concerns of other commenters. In this regard, keep in mind that the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council so its representation of the public interest is a step down from other GNSO stakeholders. Further, Leadership has not addressed how much weight will be given to the Recommendations of the CCT Review Team Final Report. The ICANN Board, on the other hand, is actually charged with the Global Public Interest in adopting policy. It cannot act in the interest of the Contracted Parties without getting “called on the carpet” at the ITU and on the world stage. Separately, many public commenters assumed NCAP would move forward. You have public comment from ALAC, the IPC, and others saying “defer to the SSAC on name collisions” at a time when it was assumed there would actually be an NCAP. Perhaps Sub Pro needs to reply to the Board’s letter to us and ask the ICANN Board for further guidance given all the circumstances. No way did Work Track 4 conduct all of the “this work” contained in Recommendations 1-3 adopted by the Board. And we are in the throes of whether or not to make a recommendation which is directly inconsistent with Recommendation 4 adopted by the Board. (ALAC, IPC, and others filed comment which agrees with SAC 90 Recommendation 4 not to add names to the root until collision risk is studied further.) If we had actually developed some sort of screening tool for “Do Not Apply” strings or some way to identify high risk strings during our work in Sub Pro, we could be making a solid recommendation about proceeding to the next round with a new Name Collision Framework to replace the old one.. I personally suggested several times in Work Track 4 work that we get a budget to hire a qualified third party consultant to undertake that work. Leadership rejected this notion as “unnecessary.” Now it appears we could be risking leaving “this work” to the “Implementation Phase” if SAC 90 Recommendation 4 is ignored. It seems very silly to me to have an applicant spend $185,000 and find out later that the string will not move forward. Name collision risk should be assessed early on and the applicant should get the fee back right away if the string cannot move forward. As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. If NCAP is dead, I think it is incumbent on Sub Pro to ACT NOW to get independent professional advice on the technical parameters and tests that should apply for each new string applied for and to get funding from ICANN to do so. It is critical that the testing and standards be developed by an independent entity. Further, an independent entity should be responsible for evaluating name collision risk mitigation plans submitted by individual applicants if that recommendation moves forward. As most on this WG already know well , the biggest risk associated with name collisions is not just arriving at the wrong site outside your server and is not a question of “threat to human life” (the only reporting requirement from 2012), it is rather the fact that the user can be intercepted on the way by phishing and other scams that defraud consumers. (See attached study.) 90 day controlled interruption is not an answer to this risk. Leaving the mitigation of this risk to individual negotiation between the registries and ICANN org on a string-by-string basis is also not an answer to this risk. Thank you, Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I want to try to be as clear as possible as to what I said because I believe it may not have come across well. Yes, the Board has accepted the recommendations of SAC 90 and in doing so has referred certain work to us. With respect to Recommendation 4, it states “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” (Emphasis added) * You have interpreted “this work” to mean the work of the NCAP, but that is not the case. * “This Work” refers to Recommendations 1-3 which does not say anything about the NCAP study. Granted that if the NCAP study were to be done, it would include Recommendations 1-3, plus a whole lot more. BUT, there are a number of other ways that Recommendations 1-3 could be implemented which involve work separate and apart from the NCAP study if the NCAP study were further delayed or never happens. For example, I believe that there are some sections of the Initial Report of our group that address some of the recommendations. I hope this is a little more clear. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com<http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne <image001.png> 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: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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. <Verisign Tech Report 2.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.

I’ve been trying to follow this thread, thanks to Anne and Jeff and others for the open dialogue. I may be a bit lost on this because I was on holiday before Kobe and missed a couple of meetings. Below, Anne says: As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. As I recall, there is no consensus that there should be a Do Not Apply list (or a low- medium- high-risk characterization). That was a point for discussion and not all comments supported this. Is this discussion then purely theoretical, since we don’t even know if such a list should exist? Thanks for helping me get back up to speed and appreciate the discussion. Best, Kristine From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 10:17 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Hi Jeff I agree that “this work” as contained in the Board Scorecard adopted SAC 90 does not necessarily mean the NCAP study. The Board took action to request that study from the SSAC, but so far it’s a “no go”. However, “this work” as described in Recommendations 1-3 covered by the Board resolution is MUCH broader in scope than any work done by Work Track 4 or any SubGroup of Subsequent Procedures. (The Board sent a letter to Subsequent Procedures about this and thus far, it has not been recirculated so it would be much appreciated if staff could circulate that letter.) May we please see the Board’s letter to Sub Pro informing us of its adoption of the SAC recommendations in relation to name collision risk? The fundamental procedural question here is to what degree Subsequent Procedures needs to take prior Board resolutions into account based on the Board’s letter to us. Rubens says “The Board can’t tell the GNSO what to do.” I think that is a bit unproductive since we get bottle-necked if the recommendations of the WG and the GNSO are not consistent with “this work” that was supposed to be done in accordance with a prior Board resolution adopting SAC 90 Advice. In the big picture, we also have to consider that the world is watching. The fact is that the GNSO is not required to consider the Global Public Interest. GNSO is primarily concerned with considering the interests of its stakeholder groups. You yourself have said that the public comments of established ICANN constituencies and advisory committees should be given more weight in the Final Report than concerns of other commenters. In this regard, keep in mind that the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council so its representation of the public interest is a step down from other GNSO stakeholders. Further, Leadership has not addressed how much weight will be given to the Recommendations of the CCT Review Team Final Report. The ICANN Board, on the other hand, is actually charged with the Global Public Interest in adopting policy. It cannot act in the interest of the Contracted Parties without getting “called on the carpet” at the ITU and on the world stage. Separately, many public commenters assumed NCAP would move forward. You have public comment from ALAC, the IPC, and others saying “defer to the SSAC on name collisions” at a time when it was assumed there would actually be an NCAP. Perhaps Sub Pro needs to reply to the Board’s letter to us and ask the ICANN Board for further guidance given all the circumstances. No way did Work Track 4 conduct all of the “this work” contained in Recommendations 1-3 adopted by the Board. And we are in the throes of whether or not to make a recommendation which is directly inconsistent with Recommendation 4 adopted by the Board. (ALAC, IPC, and others filed comment which agrees with SAC 90 Recommendation 4 not to add names to the root until collision risk is studied further.) If we had actually developed some sort of screening tool for “Do Not Apply” strings or some way to identify high risk strings during our work in Sub Pro, we could be making a solid recommendation about proceeding to the next round with a new Name Collision Framework to replace the old one.. I personally suggested several times in Work Track 4 work that we get a budget to hire a qualified third party consultant to undertake that work. Leadership rejected this notion as “unnecessary.” Now it appears we could be risking leaving “this work” to the “Implementation Phase” if SAC 90 Recommendation 4 is ignored. It seems very silly to me to have an applicant spend $185,000 and find out later that the string will not move forward. Name collision risk should be assessed early on and the applicant should get the fee back right away if the string cannot move forward. As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. If NCAP is dead, I think it is incumbent on Sub Pro to ACT NOW to get independent professional advice on the technical parameters and tests that should apply for each new string applied for and to get funding from ICANN to do so. It is critical that the testing and standards be developed by an independent entity. Further, an independent entity should be responsible for evaluating name collision risk mitigation plans submitted by individual applicants if that recommendation moves forward. As most on this WG already know well , the biggest risk associated with name collisions is not just arriving at the wrong site outside your server and is not a question of “threat to human life” (the only reporting requirement from 2012), it is rather the fact that the user can be intercepted on the way by phishing and other scams that defraud consumers. (See attached study.) 90 day controlled interruption is not an answer to this risk. Leaving the mitigation of this risk to individual negotiation between the registries and ICANN org on a string-by-string basis is also not an answer to this risk. Thank you, Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I want to try to be as clear as possible as to what I said because I believe it may not have come across well. Yes, the Board has accepted the recommendations of SAC 90 and in doing so has referred certain work to us. With respect to Recommendation 4, it states “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” (Emphasis added) * You have interpreted “this work” to mean the work of the NCAP, but that is not the case. * “This Work” refers to Recommendations 1-3 which does not say anything about the NCAP study. Granted that if the NCAP study were to be done, it would include Recommendations 1-3, plus a whole lot more. BUT, there are a number of other ways that Recommendations 1-3 could be implemented which involve work separate and apart from the NCAP study if the NCAP study were further delayed or never happens. For example, I believe that there are some sections of the Initial Report of our group that address some of the recommendations. I hope this is a little more clear. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne [cid:image001.png@01D4D5E1.00B50C10] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D4D5E1.00B50C10] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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 both, for clarifying. I will review the comments again. I did not think there was broad support for the recommendation for a Do Not Apply list, but perhaps that's my recollection because commenters were concerned about the vagueness of the recommendation (and speculation about its viability), which may ultimately be the focus of this discussion. I hear Anne saying she thinks there should be definition ahead of time and I hear Rubens saying that it shouldn't be gating...if the implementation on do not apply fails, then we could keep going and say we tried. Thanks again, Kristine -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 7:24 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today

On 9 Mar 2019, at 11:59, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:

I’ve been trying to follow this thread, thanks to Anne and Jeff and others for the open dialogue. I may be a bit lost on this because I was on holiday before Kobe and missed a couple of meetings.

Below, Anne says: As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020.

As I recall, there is no consensus that there should be a Do Not Apply list (or a low- medium- high-risk characterization). That was a point for discussion and not all comments supported this. Is this discussion then purely theoretical, since we don’t even know if such a list should exist?

Kristine, The initial report was not based on consensus calls, so we can't say anything in it had consensus or lack thereof. But the new framework, including the creation of such list, reached a level of general agreement warranting its inclusion as a recommendatioin the initial report, which is not just a point of discussion. But the recommendation itself is not the creation of such a list is mandatory: "Efforts should be undertaken to create a “Do Not Apply” list of TLD strings that pose a substantial name collision risk whereby application for such strings would not be allowed to be submitted." I read that to state that having such a list would be a welcome feature and would be allowed, but an implementation that failed to create such a list after having tried would still met the stated policy. Rubens

Kristine, I agree there has been no consensus call. I was actually discussing these elements of the Initial Report since Jeff had referenced the Work Track 4 work when stating that Sub Pro had already done some of what is described as “this work” in the Board’s Scorecard from the June 2018 resolution accepting the advice provided in SAC 90. Anne From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ I’ve been trying to follow this thread, thanks to Anne and Jeff and others for the open dialogue. I may be a bit lost on this because I was on holiday before Kobe and missed a couple of meetings. Below, Anne says: As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. As I recall, there is no consensus that there should be a Do Not Apply list (or a low- medium- high-risk characterization). That was a point for discussion and not all comments supported this. Is this discussion then purely theoretical, since we don’t even know if such a list should exist? Thanks for helping me get back up to speed and appreciate the discussion. Best, Kristine From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 10:17 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Hi Jeff I agree that “this work” as contained in the Board Scorecard adopted SAC 90 does not necessarily mean the NCAP study. The Board took action to request that study from the SSAC, but so far it’s a “no go”. However, “this work” as described in Recommendations 1-3 covered by the Board resolution is MUCH broader in scope than any work done by Work Track 4 or any SubGroup of Subsequent Procedures. (The Board sent a letter to Subsequent Procedures about this and thus far, it has not been recirculated so it would be much appreciated if staff could circulate that letter.) May we please see the Board’s letter to Sub Pro informing us of its adoption of the SAC recommendations in relation to name collision risk? The fundamental procedural question here is to what degree Subsequent Procedures needs to take prior Board resolutions into account based on the Board’s letter to us. Rubens says “The Board can’t tell the GNSO what to do.” I think that is a bit unproductive since we get bottle-necked if the recommendations of the WG and the GNSO are not consistent with “this work” that was supposed to be done in accordance with a prior Board resolution adopting SAC 90 Advice. In the big picture, we also have to consider that the world is watching. The fact is that the GNSO is not required to consider the Global Public Interest. GNSO is primarily concerned with considering the interests of its stakeholder groups. You yourself have said that the public comments of established ICANN constituencies and advisory committees should be given more weight in the Final Report than concerns of other commenters. In this regard, keep in mind that the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council so its representation of the public interest is a step down from other GNSO stakeholders. Further, Leadership has not addressed how much weight will be given to the Recommendations of the CCT Review Team Final Report. The ICANN Board, on the other hand, is actually charged with the Global Public Interest in adopting policy. It cannot act in the interest of the Contracted Parties without getting “called on the carpet” at the ITU and on the world stage. Separately, many public commenters assumed NCAP would move forward. You have public comment from ALAC, the IPC, and others saying “defer to the SSAC on name collisions” at a time when it was assumed there would actually be an NCAP. Perhaps Sub Pro needs to reply to the Board’s letter to us and ask the ICANN Board for further guidance given all the circumstances. No way did Work Track 4 conduct all of the “this work” contained in Recommendations 1-3 adopted by the Board. And we are in the throes of whether or not to make a recommendation which is directly inconsistent with Recommendation 4 adopted by the Board. (ALAC, IPC, and others filed comment which agrees with SAC 90 Recommendation 4 not to add names to the root until collision risk is studied further.) If we had actually developed some sort of screening tool for “Do Not Apply” strings or some way to identify high risk strings during our work in Sub Pro, we could be making a solid recommendation about proceeding to the next round with a new Name Collision Framework to replace the old one.. I personally suggested several times in Work Track 4 work that we get a budget to hire a qualified third party consultant to undertake that work. Leadership rejected this notion as “unnecessary.” Now it appears we could be risking leaving “this work” to the “Implementation Phase” if SAC 90 Recommendation 4 is ignored. It seems very silly to me to have an applicant spend $185,000 and find out later that the string will not move forward. Name collision risk should be assessed early on and the applicant should get the fee back right away if the string cannot move forward. As a Working Group, we have done nothing to “advance the ball” in terms of how the name collision risk should be assessed and how the recommended categories of “Do Not Apply”, low risk, medium risk, and high risk should be assessed. If NCAP is dead in the water, then this WG would be well-advised to get busy figuring out how we are going to get “this work” accomplished in time to proceed to a next round in 2020. If NCAP is dead, I think it is incumbent on Sub Pro to ACT NOW to get independent professional advice on the technical parameters and tests that should apply for each new string applied for and to get funding from ICANN to do so. It is critical that the testing and standards be developed by an independent entity. Further, an independent entity should be responsible for evaluating name collision risk mitigation plans submitted by individual applicants if that recommendation moves forward. As most on this WG already know well , the biggest risk associated with name collisions is not just arriving at the wrong site outside your server and is not a question of “threat to human life” (the only reporting requirement from 2012), it is rather the fact that the user can be intercepted on the way by phishing and other scams that defraud consumers. (See attached study.) 90 day controlled interruption is not an answer to this risk. Leaving the mitigation of this risk to individual negotiation between the registries and ICANN org on a string-by-string basis is also not an answer to this risk. Thank you, Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne, I want to try to be as clear as possible as to what I said because I believe it may not have come across well. Yes, the Board has accepted the recommendations of SAC 90 and in doing so has referred certain work to us. With respect to Recommendation 4, it states “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” (Emphasis added) * You have interpreted “this work” to mean the work of the NCAP, but that is not the case. * “This Work” refers to Recommendations 1-3 which does not say anything about the NCAP study. Granted that if the NCAP study were to be done, it would include Recommendations 1-3, plus a whole lot more. BUT, there are a number of other ways that Recommendations 1-3 could be implemented which involve work separate and apart from the NCAP study if the NCAP study were further delayed or never happens. For example, I believe that there are some sections of the Initial Report of our group that address some of the recommendations. I hope this is a little more clear. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:49 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Subsequent Procedures Working Group - Name Collisions covered in SubGroup B today Importance: High Please see below. Hi all – Regarding Name Collisions, when we get to the full WG consideration, we will need to refer to the fact that the Board gave the WG specific directions regarding the recommendations that it adopted pursuant to SSAC Advice. These appear below – excerpted from the Board’s Scorecard. Recommendation 4 is the item that Jeff said he thought was not in SAC 90: “The SSAC recommends that ICANN complete this work before making any decision to add new TLD names to the global DNS.” The work to be completed it described in SAC 90 Recommendations 1 through 3 as shown below with the corresponding Board adoption shown in the far right column. Thanks, Anne [cid:image001.png@01D4D5EE.3985A6A0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D4D5EE.3985A6A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB [mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:52 AM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-sgb@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ntfy-GNSO-NewGTLD-WG-SGB] ***CALL IN 10 MINUTES*** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call / Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group B call on Tuesday, 05 March 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. 09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4o7z723 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y4o7z723&d=...> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/WIs2Bg Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldsubteams/ If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> * Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect * Please log in with First and Last Name when joining the AC room. Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full sub team) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=Dw...> Enter passcode (Conference ID) on telephone: 7349 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.