Dear Jennifer: Responses below ** Thanks. Denise Denise Michel Director, Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel@fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com> From: Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM To: Denise Michel <denisemichel@fb.com> Cc: SSR2 <ssr2-review@icann.org> Subject: Clarification requested Dear Denise, We have been asked by the SMEs to provide some clarification on the below questions. As you asked the questions, could you please provide the clarification requested in the bold text below? The full text of the associated recommendations is included at the bottom of this email for reference. Many thanks in advance, Jennifer 1. Regarding recommendation 10, question asked via email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...>: Please provide a summary of the number of complaints and enforcement actions against registries and registrars taken by contractual compliance on the basis of SSR obligations in the past 5 years. Clarification requested: What is meant by the highlighted text? **Please see the SSR1 implementation report and SSR2 Q&As for more information on: ICANN’s SSR remit and obligations, ICANN Org statements on Compliance Dept. activities done to support “SSR objectives in new gTLDs as part of standard operating procedures”; ICANN Org/Hedlund statements that “[ICANN] actually have a lot more [SSR] obligations in our contracts with the registries than we did before, for example, so that’s what we hear when we have legacy contracts now moving and we say we’re moving them toward the new gTLD contract is because the new gTLD contract has a lot more requirements on the TLDs to be more secure and stable.” Also, please see SSR-related obligations in RAA and gTLD registry contracts. 1. Regarding recommendation 11, question asked via email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...>: How many new gTLD applications were failed (or placed in contention or required to take additional steps) on the basis of the (i) the security and stability review or (ii) the string similarity review. Clarification requested: I am not able to see how failed applications, applications in contentions and applicants that had to take additional steps are related. Is there a common thread between the three? Or are you asking how many applications were impacted by the 2 reviews listed? Are you interested in applications that may have been impacted by these reviews in other ways than the 3 you listed? **Basically asking for data relating to ICANN Org’s statements & completed work: “Organize two panels for security and stability review for all applied-for labels,” “incorporate security and stability evaluation mechanisms for applied-for IDN labels across the new gTLD and IDN ccTLD Fast Track Programs,” “Per the new gTLD Program Applicant Guide Book, two separate panels were organized for security and stability review for all applied-for labels, focused on: (i) security and stability evaluation of the strings, and (ii) string similarity review against existing, reserved and applied-for labels,” “Security and stability evaluation mechanisms for applied-for IDN labels across the new gTLD and IDN ccTLD Fast Track Programs are in place,” Recommendation 10: ICANN should continue its efforts to step up contract compliance enforcement and provide adequate resources for this function. ICANN also should develop and implement a more structured process for monitoring compliance issues and investigations. Recommendation 11: ICANN should finalize and implement measures of success for new gTLDs and IDN fast track that expressly relate to its SSR-related program objectives, including measurements for the effectiveness of mechanisms to mitigate domain name abuse. -- Jennifer Bryce Senior Reviews Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org