[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