Em 19 de set de 2019, à(s) 15:29:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:

Hi Rubens, The condition of the WG agreement to “Initial Report’ with no consensus call was that topics would be fully discussed in the full Working Group. It is therefore inadequate to refer WG members to a Work Track 4 transcript that no one has time to read. In any case, I was on the Work Track 4 calls when the attached slide was developed by you and there was in fact no detailed discussion of the harms.

Anne, If it was like you described, then there shouldn't have been work tracks. But note that I also mentioned that the topic in question was also not brought up during WG call. All themes that were brought up were discussed.

With respect to consensus, I personally believe it’s pretty clear there could be a rough consensus around coordinating with the NCAP so that there is a reasonable new name collision framework to replace the existing Name Collision Framework – running on a parallel track with all the other work that ICANN org has identified (along with Leadership) as needing to be done prior to launch.

No, there could not be. Many comments and positions both in WT4 discussions and public comments contested such position, so this also not available as a consensus option.

In other words, it seems to me that Leadership should put this out for public comment rather couching the comments as “no consensus”. This is especially given that Leadership believes the NCAP is in question and is doubtful because many of the public comments assumed it was moving forward.

Putting things where there is no consensus thru infinite public comments won't change the outcome.

At this point, we still don’t have a proposed list of the issues that do need further public comment but this issue should be on that list.

Considering that the two only recommendations that survived where discussed in both WT4 and public comments, I don't see why.

Jeff says the WG must consider 2 options:

1. NCAP moves forward and we have recommendations. OR 2. NCAP does not move forward and the WG has to consider options. What should they be?

What Jeff said was that we could specify conditionals, not that WG would reconvene when the NCAP outcome is known. This WG and its final report are due much sooner than the NCAP timeline. Rubens

These two categories outlined by Jeff certainly cry out for further public comment. Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 7:38 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

On 18 Sep 2019, at 20:53, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:

The list rejected the JAS Final Report as requiring moderator approval because the file is so big. I am forwarding this message with a modified file showing the JAS summary recommendations (not the full report). Anne

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:37 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>' <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

Hi Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding Monday’s call on name collisions, I have the following comments.

1. There seemed to be a lot of discussion about JAS having asserted that the system they recommended “worked”. In this regard, the WG has not actually had a substantive discussion on the harm associated with name collisions.

Because WT4 already had substantive discussions, and interested WG members can either ask questions on this now or refer to WT4 transcripts.

The only reporting requirement from the 2012 round was to report to ICANN any instances that involved a threat to human life.

That's not true. The only requirement involving threat to human life was the requirement to act on the report; ICANN received a number of reports, and since 0 of them were about threat to human life, all of them did not include threat to human life.

As we know, that is not the only risk posed by name collisions. The risks include the following as detailed in the attached ICANN advice to IT Professionals (see pages 6-7 of the attachment):

Para 2.1 – Direction to Unexpected Websites – and interception by malicious actors (which security certificates may not be adequate to prevent), allowing access to sensitive information and/or allowing the malicious actor to install dangerous code on the user’s computer.

Para 2.2 - Direction of Email to the Wrong Recipients

Para 2.3 – Security Reductions

And that's exactly what controlled interruption was all about: making the collision be noticed by users but without incurring those risks.

In the attached JAS Final Report that Jeff and Rubens referenced, Recommendation 14 states as follows:

<image001.png> Assessing these dangers is a critical part of NCAP Study 1 – to define the harm – and that has to happen in order to have an intelligent discussion of the topic.

Actually not; unfortunately, NCAP disregarded recommendation 14 of the JAS report and failed to include the collision risk in existing gTLD registries (which BTW only has cases known in legacy gTLDs, not in new gTLDs) in its scope, so this problem will still need addressing by someone else. And while this is in our charter, there were no discussions of this subject so far, either in WT4 or WG... so for now, the only thing we can say in the final report is that this is still not discussed.

The NCAP has a half day meeting in Montreal on Friday afternoon November 1. I am sure Sub Pro WG members are welcome. And I know Jeff assured the NCAP Discussion Group that he joined the Discussion Group for the purpose of coordinating policy with them.

2. Re the IPC position, just to clarify, the IPC consensus was to defer to NCAP if NCAP recommendations are ready in time for launch. Given that we project a couple of years before the framework for launch can be in place, it seems reasonable to expect that we could at least develop some sort of testing mechanism for DO NOT APPLY and the Work Track 4 risk categories prior to launch, either via NCAP or an independent advisor. Jeff and Cheryl’s additions to the GNSO Council letter to the Board should be helpful in this regard.

The problem is that the testing mechanism and the creation of the DO NOT APPLY list didn't make the cut for a consensus determination, in most part due to IPC and ALAC positions to defer to NCAP. The only items that survived from WT4 discussions were the substantial refund for application that ICANN refuse to sign/delegate due to name collision and the possibility of, on ICANN Org's request or approval, to disable controlled interruption for one or a few labels instead of being a all-or-nothing mechanism. All other discussions ended up in no consensus, so defaulting to 2012 implementation.

Rubens

Anne

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:34 PM 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: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

Hi Jeff and Cheryl, Thanks for sending. Two quick comments: (1) the word “including” in b) seems to be missing a letter (2) In this draft, can we please ask about the pending discussion in relation to the development of a “DO NOT APPLY” list? (The sooner the NCAP develops a methodology for that, the better off we all are.) I have not seen a specific reference to a method for testing as to “DO NOT APPLY” or very high risk strings in Study 1 and so the timing there is a bit concerning. ALAC points out we could take a bunch of applications and then not delegate until that work is done. I have always thought and always commented that there should be a way for an applicant to test a string for name collision issues without having to pay the whole application fee and put all the effort into an application and business plan only to find it’s a “no go”. We need to be asking about a gating mechanism on this issue to save people a lot of time and trouble. If that gating mechanism were developed during the time the AGB is being written, then that might prove a way forward to coordinate the timing.

Many thanks for putting this together. I believe the Board commented that there was an “opportunity for collaboration” with NCAP and an ability to work out the scheduling so that maybe their reply (in line with the public comment filed by the Board). But it never hurts to clarify.

Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:47 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

[EXTERNAL] All,

We just wanted to forward this note to the SubPro PDP Full Working Group. Cheryl and I were asked by the GNSO Council Leadership to give our thoughts to them about the attached draft letter from the Council to the ICANN Board. We provided this feedback and as you can see we made it clear that the redlines are from Cheryl and I and not the Working Group.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:44 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) (langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>; Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com <mailto:pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-chairs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

Dear Keith, Pam and Rafik,

Please find enclosed Cheryl and my redlines to the draft letter. We do not believe the substance of the letter has been changed at all, but rather just added some more specificity. This letter contains only the comments of Cheryl and I and not the Subsequent Procedures Working Group.

There are so many people making so many arguments and even if the Board says that there are “dependencies”, I think they need to be specific as to which exact step is the completion of the NCAP work dependent on. What is the exact point where we cannot move forward. Some people say the Board cannot accept the final policy without this work being done. Some say the policy can be completed, but implementation work cannot be completed prior to the NCAP finishing. Some say that can complete but we cannot complete the AGB. Some say we can complete that but we cannot announce the new round. Some say we can announce but cannot accept applications. Some say we can do it all but not delegate. And finally some say we can delegate and use existing name collision model until NCAP states otherwise.

We hope this makes sense and please forward to the GNSO Council for its consideration.

Thanks again for reaching out to us. We are going to forward this correspondence chain to the Full Working Group as well.

Best regards,

Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures Co-Chairs

Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>

From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 6:48 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) (langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-chairs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Subject: FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

Jeff/Cheryl,

FYI, attached is the draft Council letter to the Board on NCAP and SubPro. This has been sent to the Council list for consideration and comment.

Best, Keith

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:47 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies

Hi all,

Attached for your review is a draft letter from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board concerning dependencies between the NCAP and Subsequent Procedures PDP.

Please review and advise if you have any comments or questions.

We can discuss on the list and this will be included on the agenda for our 19 September GNSO Council meeting.

Thanks, Keith The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>

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. <IT Professionals - name-collision-mitigation-05dec13-en.pdf><JAS Final Report pages Cover through 8 - Summary of Recommendations.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> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

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. <Work Track 4 Rough Consensus Slide - Name Collisions 30 NOV 2017.JPG>