[ALAC] Motion on IDN TLD Confusion

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Tue Mar 28 09:30:58 UTC 2017


Dear Alan,

shouldn't the IDN WG members be asked about their point of view, as they
are the prime experts in this topic?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 27/03/2017 23:46, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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 <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> <mailto: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 <julie.hammer at bigpond.com
>>> <mailto: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 Public Comment
>>> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdfxwOqgb7q8n.pdf>
>>> in support of the ccNSO EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines
>>> <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pdf>
>>> for the evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs.  On 31
>>> August, the SSAC released SAC084
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170328/ab728a8c/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list