[ALAC] Motion on IDN TLD Confusion

Tue Mar 28 14:29:06 UTC 2017

Seun, you have come full-circle in this 
discussion. We re-opened the issue because by 
letting our statement stand we were sending a 
message that we supported the ccNSO WG report as 
submitted, and this support was being used as a 
prime rationale for not acting on SSAC advice.

The ccNSO did raise the issue of other potential 
confusing situations. Some of those are due to 
ISO-3166-2 and there is little we can do about 
that. Some is due to what I consider really bad 
decisions we made in the new gTLD process, and 
thankfully there is a strong move to not make 
those mistakes again. In my mind, we cannot 
eliminate confusion, but we should not do things that make it worse.

Alan

At 28/03/2017 04:51 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Hello Alan,
>
>I feel a quite uncomfortable with revoking the 
>previous ALAC statement because i feel that 
>could send a wrong signal about how important we 
>take IDNs. During the meeting with the ccNSO, 
>they highlighted some other instances of 
>confusability which already exist within the 
>gTLD which isn't seen as an issue, why this is 
>so peculiar still alludes me. I would have 
>preferred we add an updated statement 
>highlighting our support for timely 
>implementation of the IDN TLDs while noting the 
>point raised in bullet one instead of revoking in totality.
>
>That said, I have seen that our ccNSO liaison is 
>fine with the statement hence I will rely on her 
>judgement on this one. Nevertheless, I would 
>prefer that we modify the second bullet point to the following:
>
>"The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to 
>find a path forward that will not 
>compromise  the rigour of confusability 
>evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs."
>
>My rationale for the above that I do not think 
>this is a security and stability issue to the root.
>
>I will try to join the call for as long as 
>possible before nature fully takes over :) 
>@Staff kindly pen me down for dialout.
>
>Regards
>
>On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> 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) 
>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 bbe 
>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 donÃƒÂ¢â‚¬™t understand the 
>>>technical argument, or who simply donÃƒÂ¢€™t 
>>>wa want to know), so the more 
>>>non-controversial you make this statement, the 
>>>better chance you have of getting them to 
>>>agree.  If this doesnÃƒÂ¢€™t gt 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 theyÃƒÂ¢€™re worth. bsp; :-)
>>>
>>>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 GroupÃƒÂ¢€™s Proposed Guidelines a> 
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>
>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170328/cfabe2d3/attachment.html>