I was in the session when this was discussed today on base Registry agreement. Verisign raised the same concern about Exhibit A and proposed that dotless domains be placed under section 2.2 on items prohibited.<div><br></div><div>Staff explanation was that the listing of items under exhibit A is based on a pre-existing list of items and that inclusion doesn't translate into automatic approval.</div><div><br></div><div>I think staff got a clear message from the meeting that this is something they need to address and fix.</div><div><br></div><div>Rinalia<br><br>On Tuesday, 28 June 2016, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I am WELL versed on what it is. The issue is why this is included at all.<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On June 28, 2016 11:14:57 AM GMT+03:00, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com');" target="_blank">rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Olivier,<div><br></div><div>My understanding from Staff is that the RSEP is not a back door for dotless domains. Cyrus Namazy can explain and I am copying him.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Rinalia<br><br>On Monday, 27 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ocl@gih.com');" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<u></u><u></u>Dear ALAC members,<br>
<br>
I am currently looking at the public consultation on "Proposed
Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry Agreement" <br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/uBiOAw" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/uBiOAw</a><br>
<br>
Reading through the material that was made available, it appears
that the issue of Dotless Domains is coming up again.<br>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The ALAC went on record in 2012 which
helped encourage the Board to prohibit dotless domains. The
ALAC Statement, which you can find on
<a href="https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/7661" target="_blank">https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/7661</a> <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In that Statement, the ALAC supported the
SSAC advice in SAC053 which recommended the prohibition of
dotless domains. The Board agreed with this and in the
"current" round of new gTLDs, this prohibition took place. I
have checked with Julie Hammer, our SSAC Liaison, whether the
SSAC has changed its advice since SAC053. She has assured me
that this was NOT the case. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To summarize the concern, the proposed RA
amendment creates a possible path to approval of dotless
domains using the RSEP process, which has the potential to
circumvent the existing prohibition. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In further details:<u></u> <br>
<u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">On May
31, ICANN posted proposed amendments to the New gTLD
Registry Agreement for
<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-amend-new-gtld-agreement-2016-05-31-en" target="_blank">public
comment</a>. These amendments have been under discussion
between the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and ICANN
for 18 months. The public comment period closes on July 13
and there is a cross-community session scheduled at 10:30
a.m. on Tuesday in Helsinki.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">In 2012
and 2013, the <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-053-en.pdf" target="_blank">
SSAC</a>, <a href="https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/iab-statement-dotless-domains-considered-harmful/" target="_blank">IAB</a>,
<a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20130611/2e639e17/CoverLetter-AL-ALAC-CO-0613-01-00-EN-0001.pdf" target="_blank">ALAC</a><u>,</u>
<a href="http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/durban2013/bitcache/GAC%20Communiqu%c3%a9%20-%20Durban,%20South%20Africa.pdf" target="_blank">GAC</a>,
and the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2013-08-13-en#1.a" target="_blank">ICANN
Board</a> all recognized the risk posed by any
introduction of dotless domains in new gTLDs.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">In
August 2013, the ICANN Board’s New gTLD Program Committee
(NGPC)
<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2013-08-13-en#1.a" target="_blank">voted</a>
to prohibit dotless domains. <u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">The
proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement (RA) amendments include
a change in Exhibit A (Approved Services) related to dotless
domains. While it states appropriately that dotless domains
are not permitted, it intentionally or inadvertently
introduces a new path for approval of dotless domains via
the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP). The
relevant language is below:<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal">(Note:
The above language effectively does not allow, among other
things, the inclusion of DNS resource records that would
enable a dotless domain name (e.g., apex A, AAAA, MX
records) in the TLD zone.) If Registry Operator wishes to
place any DNS resource record type or class into its TLD
DNS service (other than those listed in Sections 1.1 or
1.2 above), it must describe in detail its proposal and
submit a Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP)
request. This will be evaluated per RSEP to determine
whether the service would create a risk of a meaningful
adverse impact on security or stability of the DNS.
Registry Operator recognizes and acknowledges that a
service based on the use of less-common DNS resource
records and/or classes in the TLD zone, even if approved,
might not work as intended for all users due to lack of
software support.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">The
explanatory notes accompanying the proposed amended RA do
not explain why this change creating a path to approval of
dotless domains has been included, and there has been no
change in the position of the ICANN Board, IAB, SSAC, GAC or
ALAC on this issue. Unlike the previously stated positions
of those entities, ICANN’s explanatory notes are silent. How
and why was this language included in the proposed
amendment? It appears to be pointless to propose a path to
try and circumvent such a clearly established prohibition.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">Using
the RSEP process in this manner risks demoting any future
evaluation of registry proposals on dotless domains to ICANN
staff without appropriate policy work and/or community
consideration.
<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">Introduction
of this proposed use of RSEP is inappropriate and it should
be removed. In light of the ICANN Board’s August 2013
resolution and the significant security and stability
concerns raised by the IAB and SSAC, dotless domains should
instead receive the same treatment in the New gTLD RA as
Wildcarding, which is explicitly prohibited in Section 2.2.<u></u><u></u></li>
</ul>
<br>
<br>
I look forward to your feedback and hope that the ALAC will make
a Statement about this issue in response to the Public
Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Base New gTLD Registry
Agreement. Perhaps should we include in our Statement a direct
question to the SSAC asking whether their advice has changed?
This way, they would be able to respond to the public record
accordingly.<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond<br>
<u></u><u></u>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
<p style="margin-top:2.5em;margin-bottom:1em;border-bottom:1px solid #000"></p><pre><hr><br>ALAC mailing list<br><a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org');" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></pre></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>