<div dir="ltr">I agree, Holly.. the statement actually acknowledges the arguments of both sides and asks the parties to try to come to some agreement on the best possible solution to ensure that there is no possibility of confusion and as you say, to facilitate the deployment of IDN TLDs. <div><br></div><div>And of course my role is to support the ALAC POV 😊</div><div><br></div><div>Maureen</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Holly Raiche <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net" target="_blank">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thanks Alan<div><br></div><div>Taking in mind Julie’s caution (and in a chat with Patrick, I heard the same thing) in the end, we only want to ask that the parties work on a solution. I think this statement does that</div><div><br></div><div>Holly<br><div><div><div class="h5"><div>On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:46 am, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_5013656742970383107Apple-interchange-newline"></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br>
===========================<br><br>
Whereas:
<ul>
<li>The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user confusion in the use of
domain names is of paramount importance;
</li><li>The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be
expedited;
</li><li>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
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>Ag6bAw</a>);
</li><li>On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its Advisory SAC084
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/en/<wbr>system/files/files/sac-085-en.<wbr>pdf</a>) raising
security and stability concerns based on potential user confusability
with the proposed process;
</li><li>During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with both the SSAC and the
ccNSO to discuss the issue;
</li><li>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;
</li><li>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;
</li></ul>Therefore:
<ul>
<li>The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN.
</li><li>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.
</li></ul><br><br>
At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_5013656742970383107cite">Understand…you know thhe
community better than me. And I thought there was more than Wafa,
but good if that is not the case.<br><br>
Cheers, Julie<br><br>
On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_5013656742970383107cite">Hi Alan,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Just my thoughts, for what they̢۪re worth. :-)<br><br>
Cheers, Julie<br><br>
On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer
<<a href="mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com" target="_blank">julie.hammer@bigpond.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
Hi Alan,<br><br>
Just some words to think about, should you feel they are
appropriate:<br><br>
<b>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel<br>
</b><br>
On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a
<a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdfxwOqgb7q8n.pdf" target="_blank">
Public Comment</a> in support of the ccNSO
<a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pdf" target="_blank">
EPSRP Working Group̢۪s Proposed Guidelines</a> for the evaluation of
confusing similarity in IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf" target="_blank">
SAC084</a> 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.<br><br>
Cheers, Julie</blockquote></blockquote></div></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>ALAC mailing list<br><a href="mailto: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.<wbr>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/<wbr>display/atlarge/At-Large+<wbr>Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" 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)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/atlarge/At-Large+<wbr>Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>