[ALAC] Motion on IDN TLD Confusion

[Alan Greenberg]

In Copenhagen, we decided that subject to final 
wording, we would revisit our earlier decision. I 
propose the following motion which I think fully 
matches our discvussion. We will discuss it on 
the ALAC call tomorrow, and either vote on it 
during the call of via an online vote to start following the call.

Alan
===========================

Whereas:
    * The ALAC believes that the avoidance of 
user confusion in the use of domain names is of paramount importance;
    * The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be expedited;
    * On 24 August 2016, the ALAC issued 
Statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN supporting the 
recommendations of the ccNSO Extended Process 
Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group 
(see 
<https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw);
    * On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its 
Advisory SAC084 
(<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf) 
raising security and stability concerns based on 
potential user confusability with the proposed process;
    * During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met 
with both the SSAC and the ccNSO to discuss the issue;
    * The ALAC was made aware of a possible 
methodology to resolve the issue – specifically, 
accept that at two character IDN string may be 
confusingly similar in its own right, but that 
the impact on end-users could be mitigated by registry policy;
    * If such mitigation is committed to by the 
registry and is considered as part of the 
evaluation process, the issue of user confusion can be reduced;
Therefore:
    * The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN.
    * The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to 
find a path forward that will not compromise 
security and stability or the rigour of 
confusability evaluation processes while ensuring 
timely deployment of IDN TLDs.


At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:
>Understand
you know thhe community better than 
>me.  And I thought there was more than Wafa, but good if that is not the case.
>
>Cheers,  Julie
>
>On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>Actually, probably the other way around. Since 
>out discussion focused on mitigation, not 
>mentioning that may trigger some concern. In any 
>case, I think the only holdout will be Wafa, and 
>I will do use back-channels to make sure that 
>Maureen, Andrei and Javier are ok. But if there 
>is any pus-hback, you we will talk.
>
>Alan
>
>At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:
>>Hi Alan,
>>
>>I have been thinking about this a little 
>>further after our brief chat on Thursday after 
>>I showed it to you.  You were considering 
>>saying a little more than I have drafted below, 
>>but I think it may be prudent to keep the 
>>statement minimalist, as I have tried to do in 
>>this draft.  My thinking is that you want to 
>>get this through the vote, and the more you put 
>>in it, the more opportunity there is for ALAC 
>>Members to either disagree or try to 
>>wordsmith.  You already know that you have a 
>>few who wish to support the ccNSO position (who 
>>perhaps don̢۪t understand the technical 
>>argument, or who simply don̢۪t want to know), 
>>so the more non-controversial you make this 
>>statement, the better chance you have of 
>>getting them to agree.  If this doesn̢۪t get 
>>through, then that would be a really big win 
>>for the ccNSO and they may well try to 
>>capitalize on it.   That in turn may seriously 
>>complicate the delicate discussions that are 
>>continuing between them, the Board and the SSAC.
>>
>>Just my thoughts, for what they̢۪re worth.  :-)
>>
>>Cheers,  Julie
>>
>>On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer 
>><<mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>julie.hammer at bigpond.com > wrote:
>>
>>Hi Alan,
>>
>>Just some words to think about, should you feel they are appropriate:
>>
>>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel
>>
>>On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a 
>><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdfxwOqgb7q8n.pdf>Public 
>>Comment in support of the ccNSO 
>><http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pdf>EPSRP 
>>Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines for the 
>>evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN 
>>ccTLDs.  On 31 August, the SSAC released 
>><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>SAC084 
>>highlighting security and stability concerns 
>>with the proposed process based on user 
>>confusability.  Taking into consideration the 
>>ongoing discussions between the ICANN Board, 
>>the ccNSO and the SSAC to resolve these 
>>different views, the ALAC wishes to withdraw 
>>its earlier expression of support and reserve 
>>its judgement on this issue until these differences are resolved.
>>
>>Cheers,  Julie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170327/f3f6315a/attachment.html>