<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 28/03/2017 04:51 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Alan,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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:<br><br>
"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."<br><br>
My rationale for the above that I do not think this is a security and
stability issue to the root.<br><br>
I will try to join the call for as long as possible before nature fully
takes over :) @Staff kindly pen me down for dialout.<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>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>
<dd>Alan<br>
<dd>===========================<br><br>
<dd>Whereas:
<dd>The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user confusion in the use of
domain names is of paramount importance;
<dd>The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be
expedited;
<dd>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">
https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw</a>);
<dd>On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its Advisory SAC084 (
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf</a>) raising
security and stability concerns based on potential user confusability
with the proposed process;
<dd>During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with both the SSAC and the
ccNSO to discuss the issue;
<dd>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;
<dd>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;
<dd>Therefore:
<dd>The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN.
<dd>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. <br>
<br>
<dd>At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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>
<dd>Cheers, Julie<br><br>
<dd>On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hi Alan,<br><br>
<dd>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 don’t
understand the technical argument, or who simply don’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 doesn’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.<br><br>
<dd>Just my thoughts, for what they’re worth. bsp; :-)<br><br>
<dd>Cheers, Julie<br><br>
<dd>On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer
<<a href="mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com">julie.hammer@bigpond.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Hi Alan,<br><br>
<dd>Just some words to think about, should you feel they are
appropriate:<br><br>
<dd>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel<br>
</b><br>
<dd>On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a
<a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pdfxwOqgb7q8n.pdf">
Public Comment</a> in support of the ccNSO
<a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.pdf">
EPSRP Working Group’s Proposed Guidelines</a> 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">
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>
<dd>Cheers, Julie</blockquote></blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#888888">Seun Ojedeji,<br>
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br>
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="??">+2348035233535</a><br>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></i><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
action!<br>
</font><br>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>