HI Lars and Elisa, I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment. Not sure where others stand on this? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote: HI Lars and Elisa, I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment. Not sure where others stand on this? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
And just to add quickly. The team heard the feedback during last wee’s sessions and so those will be addressed - where possible - in the drafts that will go out for public comment. On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:08, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote: Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote: HI Lars and Elisa, I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment. Not sure where others stand on this? 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.
I will try channeling what I heard in the calls, but since I am not a professional psychic I could be very wrong; I don’t recall that many comments about the applicant journey itself, only to the touching points between applicant journey and name collisions. So these two issues could essentially be one issue, in fact. So perhaps looking at the maturity of the text for name collisions, both in its own section and in applicant journey, and assessing its readiness before adding them or not to the public comment ? Rubens
Em 10 de fev. de 2025, à(s) 15:13, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
And just to add quickly. The team heard the feedback during last wee’s sessions and so those will be addressed - where possible - in the drafts that will go out for public comment.
On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:08, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars
On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
HI Lars and Elisa,
I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment.
Not sure where others stand on this?
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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Bottom line - I think the IRT needs to see the revised language in both Name Collisions and Applicant Journey before these go out for public comment. There was a robust discussion on the Name Collisions language and Rubens is correct that this spills over into Applicant Journey somewhat. My main concern with respect to Applicant Journey is that, as I understand it from NCAP participation and from Jim Galvin's very detailed explanation to Elisa directly, every string will undergo Temporary Delegation and that will occur beyond the initial six month time frame for initial risk assessment. Jeff believes that if a string is shown to be high risk in the initial assessment, it will not undergo Temporary Delegation, but Jim points out that you can't develop a reasonable mitigation plan without the data that is developed in Temporary Delegation. All this affects time frames for processing the application. Thanks, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:13 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
And just to add quickly. The team heard the feedback during last wee’s sessions and so those will be addressed - where possible - in the drafts that will go out for public comment.
On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:08, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars
On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
HI Lars and Elisa,
I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment.
Not sure where others stand on this?
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 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, Thank you again for reaching out and raising these points. We had several discussions internally, and at this stage we do not agree with the points made by Jim. We did not detect any recommendation that aligns with the idea that high risk strings need to go through temporary delegation. We also conferred with our colleague from OCTO and we believe that doing so would in fact constitute a security risk. In addition, the NCAP2<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-2-report-05apr24-en.p...> report excludes high risk strings from temporary delegation (“Name Collision Data Gathering and Assessment Tools “) on p.81: “Strings that are not considered high-risk strings would then be reviewed using Name Collision Data Gathering and Assessment Tools, some of which are included within the report as a small sampling of example available methods.” We have taken other input into account and these are now reflected in the AGB language that I will share in a moment. And we will make sure that the language in the Applicant Journey (to be shared tomorrow (12 Feb) will align. Best. Lars From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 05:01 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Cc: Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> Subject: Re: [Ext] Name Collisions and Applicant Journey in the AGB Draft Bottom line - I think the IRT needs to see the revised language in both Name Collisions and Applicant Journey before these go out for public comment. There was a robust discussion on the Name Collisions language and Rubens is correct that this spills over into Applicant Journey somewhat. My main concern with respect to Applicant Journey is that, as I understand it from NCAP participation and from Jim Galvin's very detailed explanation to Elisa directly, every string will undergo Temporary Delegation and that will occur beyond the initial six month time frame for initial risk assessment. Jeff believes that if a string is shown to be high risk in the initial assessment, it will not undergo Temporary Delegation, but Jim points out that you can't develop a reasonable mitigation plan without the data that is developed in Temporary Delegation. All this affects time frames for processing the application. Thanks, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:13 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: And just to add quickly. The team heard the feedback during last wee’s sessions and so those will be addressed - where possible - in the drafts that will go out for public comment. On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:08, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: HI Lars and Elisa, I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment. Not sure where others stand on this? 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
My recollection of NCAP is aligned with Org ended up choosing for AGB language. There are some strings that a review with no temporary delegation would fit the criteria to be determined high-risk without going through temporary delegation. A current example would be .internal. Note that a string that goes through temporary delegation might be found to be high-risk anyways… and it was discussed in NCAP that the evaluation provider could decide to pull the plug on a temporary delegation before its usual runtime if such a scenario is detected. So perhaps the confusion is in whether a string that is temporary delegated might end up the list of high-risk strings or not. Rubens
Em 11 de fev. de 2025, à(s) 23:45, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Hi Anne,
Thank you again for reaching out and raising these points. We had several discussions internally, and at this stage we do not agree with the points made by Jim. We did not detect any recommendation that aligns with the idea that high risk strings need to go through temporary delegation. We also conferred with our colleague from OCTO and we believe that doing so would in fact constitute a security risk. In addition, the NCAP2 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-2-report-05apr24-en.p...> report excludes high risk strings from temporary delegation (“Name Collision Data Gathering and Assessment Tools “) on p.81: “Strings that are not considered high-risk strings would then be reviewed using Name Collision Data Gathering and Assessment Tools, some of which are included within the report as a small sampling of example available methods.”
We have taken other input into account and these are now reflected in the AGB language that I will share in a moment. And we will make sure that the language in the Applicant Journey (to be shared tomorrow (12 Feb) will align.
Best. Lars
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 05:01 To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Cc: Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> Subject: Re: [Ext] Name Collisions and Applicant Journey in the AGB Draft
Bottom line - I think the IRT needs to see the revised language in both Name Collisions and Applicant Journey before these go out for public comment.
There was a robust discussion on the Name Collisions language and Rubens is correct that this spills over into Applicant Journey somewhat. My main concern with respect to Applicant Journey is that, as I understand it from NCAP participation and from Jim Galvin's very detailed explanation to Elisa directly, every string will undergo Temporary Delegation and that will occur beyond the initial six month time frame for initial risk assessment.
Jeff believes that if a string is shown to be high risk in the initial assessment, it will not undergo Temporary Delegation, but Jim points out that you can't develop a reasonable mitigation plan without the data that is developed in Temporary Delegation. All this affects time frames for processing the application.
Thanks, Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:13 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote:
And just to add quickly. The team heard the feedback during last wee’s sessions and so those will be addressed - where possible - in the drafts that will go out for public comment.
On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:08, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote:
Thank you, Anne. We can make some last minute space on Thursday if you like. But I’d like to hear from others. This will likely take time from our discussions post public comment in April and early May. My understanding is that the proposed language reflects what’s recommended. And so from my viewpoint we would clean up the documents and publish for comment. Best. Lars
On Feb 10, 2025, at 00:53, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote:
HI Lars and Elisa,
I don't think that Applicant Journey or Name Collisions sections are ready to go out for public comment without further review/discussion by the IRT. I realize we are trying to meet deadlines but the last sessions on these two drafts raised important issues that need to be resolved and I think in the long run, it will take less time to resolve them first before public comment.
Not sure where others stand on this?
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 <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto: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.
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 (3)
-
Anne ICANN -
Lars Hoffmann -
Rubens Kuhl