I find these kinds of vague assertions troubling. Not only do they cause drama with little path to resolution, they also increase the barrier to participation in working groups because new entrants are expected to know (intuitively? through osmosis?) these issues in order to discuss them. So if you take nothing else from my email, I ask that everyone please at least clarify predictions of doom with actual evidence matching the prediction. The advice linked in the email is generic advice regarding LGRs. I'm not clear how a malign TMCH label can cause harm in a registry with label generation rules that enforce homogeneity and prevent cross language/script homographic attacks. Is this advice for Registries that aren't using effective LGRs? Is this advice for the TMCH being sued because said malicious registrant can't actually use their SMD effectively (because registries prevent the label)? Is this a legal risk or a risk to infrastructure or DNS consumers? Are we going to address legal risks on this mailing list? What can't we trust the TMCH for? What is the risk? <- again is it legal, infrastructure, other..? I'm concerned that TLDs may not be meeting their SLAs. Is there a mechanism we can use to exchange examples and suggestions without turning it into a finger pointing exercise? My understanding of EBERO activation is that it is primarily a mechanism to protect registrants and DNS consumers. Are they at risk? Are contracts a Security, Stability or Resiliency issue? (I realise this post was from another mailing list, where contracts may be of relevance) Kal From: gnso-ssr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ssr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, 21 February 2014 3:51 AM To: GNSO SSR List Subject: [Gnso-ssr] Broken TMCH? hi all, here's a snip from the chat transcript of the recent CEO/Community-Leaders webinar. i'm curious about the "broken TMCH" comment that Patrik made. Patrik (or others) would you like to expand on that? i'm curious whether that would be an SSR topic that one/all of the GNSO constituencies might want to request a review by the SSAC. here's the chat transcript: Patrik Fältström: I would like to remind everyone that regarding the issues SSAC have seen on broken TMCH has not been acted on, at all. And I urge people to not rely on TMCH yet. In any process. Patrik Fältström: https://www.myicann.org/board-advice#advice-to-board_f=tmch&advice-to-board_... Michele Neylon: Security + stability issues should be core Michele Neylon: I thought they were core to ICANN's mission Patrik Fältström: I also want to point out that we do have new gTLDs that are so broken technically that I think various clauses that say EBERO could be invoked has matched. Michele Neylon: Patrik - already? Michele Neylon: wow Patrik Fältström: Part from me supporting the issue that Michele mentioned, that the fact people in some legislations cannot sign contracts with ICANN due to US-centric clauses is something that MUST be addresses, or else our enemies might be able to say that "the internal ICANN change processes does not work" PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)