IRT Meeting Schedules and preparation for meetings + brief input on Name Collisions
Lars and Elisa et As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list. Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period. Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions: 1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT? 2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan. I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.) Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
Hi Anne, Thank you for your email. We appreciate your concern and are very sorry that we have not been able to share documents in a timely manner, especially these last couple of weeks. Since the closing of the fourth public comments on April 2, we have been trying our best to prepare slides and update/share documents as soon as feasible but often ended up finalizing our internal reviews just before IRT calls. We have some free slots with the IRT in May, and should you have concerns on any specific topics after reviewing the language, we will of course spend more time discussing them with the group. We have canceled meeting #132 and will try to avoid having such short breaks between meetings in the future. Name Collision will be discussed next week – I will forward your email to the relevant SMEs so they can address your concerns. Thank you very much for your understanding and support! Best, Elisa From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 April 2025 at 18:36 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IRT Meeting Schedules and preparation for meetings + brief input on Name Collisions Lars and Elisa et As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list. Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period. Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions: 1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT? 2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan. I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.) Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Many thanks Elisa. We appreciate your attention to these concerns. And thank you again for all the hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 1:49 AM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for your email.
We appreciate your concern and are very sorry that we have not been able to share documents in a timely manner, especially these last couple of weeks. Since the closing of the fourth public comments on April 2, we have been trying our best to prepare slides and update/share documents as soon as feasible but often ended up finalizing our internal reviews just before IRT calls. We have some free slots with the IRT in May, and should you have concerns on any specific topics after reviewing the language, we will of course spend more time discussing them with the group.
We have canceled meeting #132 and will try to avoid having such short breaks between meetings in the future.
Name Collision will be discussed next week – I will forward your email to the relevant SMEs so they can address your concerns.
Thank you very much for your understanding and support!
Best,
Elisa
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, 15 April 2025 at 18:36 *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Elisa Busetto < elisa.busetto@icann.org> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" < subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] IRT Meeting Schedules and preparation for meetings + brief input on Name Collisions
Lars and Elisa et
As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list.
Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period.
Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions:
1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT?
2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan.
I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.)
Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work!
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
With respect to Name Collision being discussed next week, as SSAC’s representative to the IRT I would very much like to be present at all times when Topic 29 is being discussed. SSAC submitted a lengthy comment. Most of the comment was supporting documentation for three concerns. Over the next 4 meetings, I have conflicts from which I cannot escape on Thursday, 24 April, and on Wednesday, 30 April. I would appreciate it if Name Collisions were not discussed on either of those two days. The current meeting schedule here - https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112197937/Meeti... - as of this message shows Name Collisions on Tuesday, 29 April. For clarity, this works for me. Thanks, Jim On 16 Apr 2025, at 4:49, Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Hi Anne,
Thank you for your email.
We appreciate your concern and are very sorry that we have not been able to share documents in a timely manner, especially these last couple of weeks. Since the closing of the fourth public comments on April 2, we have been trying our best to prepare slides and update/share documents as soon as feasible but often ended up finalizing our internal reviews just before IRT calls. We have some free slots with the IRT in May, and should you have concerns on any specific topics after reviewing the language, we will of course spend more time discussing them with the group.
We have canceled meeting #132 and will try to avoid having such short breaks between meetings in the future.
Name Collision will be discussed next week – I will forward your email to the relevant SMEs so they can address your concerns.
Thank you very much for your understanding and support!
Best, Elisa
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 April 2025 at 18:36 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IRT Meeting Schedules and preparation for meetings + brief input on Name Collisions
Lars and Elisa et
As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list.
Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period.
Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions:
1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT?
2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan.
I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.)
Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Hi Anne, The TRT is going to be implemented as part of the name collision mitigation measures. The TRT is briefly mentioned in section 5.1. We should probably expand on the TRT in the AGB, let us look into that. Regarding your second question, I’m not sure I follow, would you mind elaborating? -- Francisco. On 4/15/25, 09:36, "Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Lars and Elisa et As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list. Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period. Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions: 1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT? 2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan. I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.) Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Regarding Anne’s second question, since she referenced SSAC’s input, I’ll suggest on behalf of SSAC that what Anne is referring to is Item B in the SSAC public comment submission. In SSAC’s public comment, SSAC notes that NCAP recommends 4 methods for assessing name collisions. The first 3 are related to the collection and review of DNS query data (with increasing disruption to the ecosystem during temporary delegation) and the fourth is related to the collection and review of additional data. NCAP notes and SSAC emphasizes in its public comment Item B that the additional data from the fourth method is required in order for applicants with strings identified as high-risk to be able to develop a mitigation and remediation plan. This fourth method is called “Visible Interruption with Notification” in NCAP. This fourth method is not mentioned in the Topic 29 Proposal. As the fourth method is an integral part of the NCAP proposed Name Collision Framework, both SSAC and it would appear Anne are asking why this method appears to be excluded from the Topic 29 proposal. I hope this helps, Jim Referring to the SSAC comment on Topic 29, On 16 Apr 2025, at 20:01, Francisco Arias via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Hi Anne,
The TRT is going to be implemented as part of the name collision mitigation measures. The TRT is briefly mentioned in section 5.1. We should probably expand on the TRT in the AGB, let us look into that.
Regarding your second question, I’m not sure I follow, would you mind elaborating?
-- Francisco.
On 4/15/25, 09:36, "Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote:
Lars and Elisa et
As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list.
Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period.
Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions:
1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT?
2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan.
I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.)
Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
Thanks, Jim. That’s easy, it was an oversight to mention the four collection methods. We are planning to address that. -- Francisco. On 4/17/25, 10:43, "James Galvin" <galvin@elistx.com<mailto:galvin@elistx.com>> wrote: Regarding Anne’s second question, since she referenced SSAC’s input, I’ll suggest on behalf of SSAC that what Anne is referring to is Item B in the SSAC public comment submission. In SSAC’s public comment, SSAC notes that NCAP recommends 4 methods for assessing name collisions. The first 3 are related to the collection and review of DNS query data (with increasing disruption to the ecosystem during temporary delegation) and the fourth is related to the collection and review of additional data. NCAP notes and SSAC emphasizes in its public comment Item B that the additional data from the fourth method is required in order for applicants with strings identified as high-risk to be able to develop a mitigation and remediation plan. This fourth method is called “Visible Interruption with Notification” in NCAP. This fourth method is not mentioned in the Topic 29 Proposal. As the fourth method is an integral part of the NCAP proposed Name Collision Framework, both SSAC and it would appear Anne are asking why this method appears to be excluded from the Topic 29 proposal. I hope this helps, Jim Referring to the SSAC comment on Topic 29, On 16 Apr 2025, at 20:01, Francisco Arias via SubPro-IRT wrote: Hi Anne, The TRT is going to be implemented as part of the name collision mitigation measures. The TRT is briefly mentioned in section 5.1. We should probably expand on the TRT in the AGB, let us look into that. Regarding your second question, I’m not sure I follow, would you mind elaborating? -- Francisco. On 4/15/25, 09:36, "Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Lars and Elisa et As Justine has noted previously, it would be great if we could review the slides where you go over the public comment to the AGB draft and the responses PRIOR to the IRT meetings. It is very difficult to react "on the fly" and difficult to gauge the IRT responses and consensus when the only follow up is via the list. Separately, I note this week that there are two IRT meetings 16 hours apart. I am not entirely sure why this is the case (again) but it would definitely be best to avoid two meetings in the same 24 hour period. Regarding Meeting #132, please accept my apologies but I do have comments re Name Collisions: 1. It appears that the section of the NCAP Report adopted by the Board which refers to the creation of a Technical Review Team is not specifically mentioned in the current draft AGB? Does the Implementation plan vary from this recommendation to create the TRT? 2. It is unclear whether there is a risk assessment mechanism which applies relating to Visible Interruption with Notification in certain cases. This is a mechanism which NCAP recommended. It is unclear what mechanism ICANN intends to use in this regard. In addition, it appears that without this level of risk assessment, it would be extremely difficult for any string classified as "high risk" to be able to submit a successful mitigation plan. I believe that I and others provided some feedback on the above when commenting on the document and in the meeting before the draft AGB went out for public comment. Admittedly this is a very complex topic. (The input from the SSAC will be of greatest importance here.) Thank you for your consideration of the above points. Onward and upward and thanks again for all your hard work! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (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.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Elisa Busetto -
Francisco Arias -
James Galvin