Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Jim Prendergast
40:28
if you want a funny twitter handle focused on bookcases as zoom background. https://twitter.com/bcredibility?lang=en
Andrea Glandon
41:04
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Jim Prendergast
42:49
for AOB - can we get the email the co-chairs sent to the ICANN board with clarifying questions? or did I miss it in my inbox? thanks
Steve Chan
44:44
1. Root Zone Delegation Rates2. How names are constructed: IDNs / Variants / Restricted character combos3. DNS Abuse itself and a proxy for other meta issues4. Registry Testing / Pre-evaluation process for Back End Operators5. TLD Types6. Rationale for Rejected SSAC Advice7. Name Collision / Interaction with Private TLD proposal
Julie Hedlund
44:45
These are the topics: Root Zone Delegation RatesHow names are constructed: IDNs / Variants / Restricted character combosDNS Abuse itself and a proxy for other meta issuesRegistry Testing / Pre-evaluation process for Back End OperatorsTLD TypesRationale for Rejected SSAC AdviceName Collision / Interaction with Private TLD proposal
Steve Chan
44:49
Jinx!
Paul McGrady
45:37
Agree! Thank you for coming on to this call!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:29
Undertood Rod, thanks for taking time today with us all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:47
and yes we understand bad timing (especially this year)
Rubens Kuhl
50:36
2020 is bad year. Period.
Maxim Alzoba
50:56
and it is not over yet
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
52:08
love the optimism Maxim :-)
Paul McGrady
53:39
Rod mentioned a paper that just came out, but I didn't catch the title.
Paul McGrady
53:52
@Jeff - thanks.
Rubens Kuhl
53:57
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-015-01oct20-en.pdf
Steve Chan
54:02
The public comment period can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-early-warning-root-scaling-2020-10-05-en
Paul McGrady
54:04
Thanks Rubens!!
Paul McGrady
54:13
Thanks Steve!
Geoff Huston - SSAC
56:18
I would hesitate to view the OCTO document authored by Paul Hoffman as the last word on this topic. Its a new, among many views.
Geoff Huston - SSAC
56:28
s/new/view/
Jeffrey Neuman
56:52
My totally personal non-working group view: https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/is-the-root-zone-growing-too-quickly-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:12
or glitching a bit
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:42
Noted Geoff thanks for clarifying the variety of view that may exist
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:09
Ram SPIRT is not designed to be a decision making body, we can advise it to follow certain rules of engagement for example in this case to ensure that wider or SSAC based input is required to be tken into account (by example) if the WG so Recommends
Paul McGrady
01:06:26
We did discuss that and were concerned that it would open up the GAC to lobbying to get things on the SPIRT's work sheet.
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:28
I don't see AC's referring to SPIRT directly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:57
indeed not @Rubens
Alan Greenberg
01:07:41
There may be a narrow line between "lobbying" and "waving a red warning flag"
Elaine Pruis
01:08:19
Perhaps SPIRIT should have an SSAC liaison
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:33
and such warnings can surely trigger the correct que to get to attention and SPIRT input @Alan
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:09:54
Two issues we were concerned about in some of our internal discussions at SSAC were:1. Its ability to recognize a large, overarching issue that may be politically unpopular but technically necessary, and2. Its ability to enact real outcomes on these.For example, can SPIRT recommend an action that can be overturned by the GNSO Council?
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:58
but what if SSAC requests another fishing expedition like NCAP?
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:10:45
@Maxim, the Board requested NCAP :) SSAC was the stuckee...
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:30
but there were no words for stopping the next round
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:31
No AC is more special than the other, so we should stick to treating AC's equally.
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:14:07
“deadbeef"
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:37
deadbeef is a phrase. 0xdeadbeef is an hex value.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:36
sword is long dead
Jim Prendergast
01:16:30
drove a stake through sword
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:16:33
I'll wait until after reactions come through, @Rod
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:16:42
The issue is in parsing “de.ad.be.ef”… or “192.168.53.22”, assuming that “.22” got delegated and the appropriate subdomains were created.
Paul McGrady
01:17:04
Down with SWORD. :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:24
If someone suggests a nice replacement for SWORD in the implementation, fine... but I don't see a need for anything other than already existing similarity algorithms, Levenshtein and the like.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:18:53
coach
Paul McGrady
01:19:23
.apple for computers .apples for the Apple Grower Association, who promises not to sell computers or phones in their intended use section
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:20:23
Make plurals in German; it’s fun!
Paul McGrady
01:20:49
@Barry - ha! Sadly, I only speak Murican.
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:17
.7-11
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:58
the rules from the previous rounds changed a lot comparing to 2012
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:29
I am not sure policy advice from SSAC can replace work of the PDP
Alexander Schubert
01:22:55
ASCII two character is the exclusive name space for the ccNSO - off limits for the GNSO.
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:21
it sounds like prohibition of an end user freedom of choice and sue and content regulation
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:24:06
What about “book” and “bookie”?
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:24:13
Not at all alike.....
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:24:32
Trying to deal with semantics is going to root out a lot of dragons.
Alan Greenberg
01:24:48
Perhaps the panel though auto and autos were not confusingly similar, but clearly the TLD owners do!
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:41
but how technical expertise of SSAC can be applied to the community considerations of linguistic nature?
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:25:43
+1 to Ram!
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:25:51
A factor, but not a rule.
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:18
ASCII 2-letter is recognised in the report as being ccTLD exclusive, not 2-char generically.
Jaap Akkerhuis - SSAC
01:28:11
Given the amount of problems already shown in this short discussion, it is intended use is surely going to cause a lot of problems
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:19
Apple is safe - they have more money
Jaap Akkerhuis - SSAC
01:29:03
Yeah, and apple would never go into the music publishing business....
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:29:09
But what about the internet user? It becomes very confusing for them particularly apples v apple
Paul McGrady
01:29:30
@Ram - the parties could work that out for themselves.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:56
it is a legal question, not technical one
Katrin Ohlmer
01:30:14
Do we have statistics whether Internet users are confused by singular vs. plural strings?
Rod Rasmussen - SSAC Chair
01:30:58
@Ketrin - based on what Jeff mentioned, those studies weren’t done since the examples ended up being consolidated.
Paul McGrady
01:31:11
It seems to me the more that private parties are left to work things out for themselves, the less the ICANN Board and Org are on the hook to enforce.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:38
Personally @Katrin I doubt they either actually are or if there is confusion not for long once explored and content discovered BY the Internet user...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:44
Not refering to intentional misleading of course
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:32:48
@Cheryl, will the registrar need to explain to the registrant the difference between the TLD apples v apple? Will there be a red flag that explains the intent of the TLD? Likely not.
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:07
with all due respect a legal advice from technical experts is as good as a technical advice from legal ones :)
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:32
@Donna, if all but of them are exclusive-use TLDs, this won't happen.
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:37
(all but one)
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
01:33:49
hello everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:02
@Donna it to me (again very personal view) almost a marketing choice for the Regisrant
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:34:05
Agreed Rubens, but what if they aren't?
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:34:07
I'll note that this discussion of applying semantic basis ("intended use") to determining confusing similarity appears more English centric. It gets complicated once you expand the linguistic base.
Paul McGrady
01:34:20
@Donna - I doubt the Apple Growers would get a registry just for the fun of selling second levels. They would likely have registration restrictions limiting it to Apple Farmers. So, I don't think registrars would have to do much of anything once they got the validation credentials to register. And, whether or not a farmer registered bad.apples would have to be dealt with by Apple and the Apple Growers Association.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:26
use is a legal thing
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:39
DNS Abuse is not specific to 2022+ TLDs. This is why the report didn't go into that topic.
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:12
to say more it is not limited to fTLDs
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:17
sorry, gTLDs
Jaap Akkerhuis - SSAC
01:35:21
@Ram, yes the US-English bias is a problem in all these discussions
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:28
indeed @Maxim well said, I was going to move the other aspects of name use as TLD consequenses
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:35:29
confusing similarity is not a legal issue solely. it's also a user issue, and a security issue as well with respect to its vulnerability to phish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:33
vulnerability and security *IS* a specific and an important one, thus my intentional mislead comment earlier @Ram
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:36:53
the SSAC's view will likely be guided by the security and technical aspects rather than legal ones :)@Cheryl, ack!
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:15
not many people say here that the bad content stays at the same place even after the domain being deleted or blocked
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:18
understood @Ram :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:37:30
Whether the place is for discussing DNS Abuse, it's not here.
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:37:51
abuse existed before nTLDs. it will exist after :)
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:53
Most of the feeds I get have the higher number of DNS abusive domains in .com.
Rod Rasmussen - SSAC Chair
01:39:12
@Jeff - knowing what those factors are is key - there were certain “new” operators that were overwhelmed - but why?
Paul McGrady
01:39:58
@Jeff - in theory cleaner players should have a market advantage. If not, then it is time to look at who the customers are...
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:19
Not limited to specific classes of TLDs:
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:20
http://dnsabuseframework.org/
Rod Rasmussen - SSAC Chair
01:41:32
What were the primary drivers of concentrated abuse? Pricing? - undoubtedly at 1 cent, poor filtering of bad actors registering names? likely. Would be really good to have a solid understanding to make good decisions.
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:29
on the other hand high prices suppress 3rd world oriented TLDs, things affordable in US are beyond the reasonable level there
Rod Rasmussen - SSAC Chair
01:43:05
Lack of experience for new operators? Maybe, maybe not. Lots to know/
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:56
I am not sure success is something of a security concern
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:10
might be an issue of a separation
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:45:30
the data is important. ICANN has been talking about bad actors for some time, but are yet to provide evidence of what they are talking about. also important to keep the conversation in perspective: are we talking about DNS abuse or abuse conducted on the Internet.
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:48:22
Oooh, bouncy-can
Barry Leiba. - SSAC
01:48:25
cam
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:38
A Pre-evaluted BERO is not necessary fit for purpose. It means it would have passed evaluation.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:10
were EBEROs tested for RDAP on time?
Jim Prendergast
01:49:12
were any applicants rejected on technical grounds last go around?
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:19
also - less of technical bottleneck testing issue
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:50:33
i think one portfolio applicant had a lot of clarifying questions relating to the technical component of their application, but ultimately was approved
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:29
@Jim, 34 applications went to extended evaluation, but that encompass technical, financial, Geo etc.
Jim Prendergast
01:51:48
@Rubens - thanks
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:57
https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus:getalleepassedapps?_csrf=0f04e563-a5fc-4a12-8133-4fb76e50fdfe
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:29
Happy to look at strengthening that (as a steal) though @Rod ;-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:46
One of the applicants that failed technical evaluation was .unicorn:
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:47
https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/m6bk8at7iydw5jrsb9zat5ia/ie-1-1771-82835-en.pdf
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:58
(Later withdrawn due to contention with .unicom)
Elaine Pruis
01:55:22
What’s the topic?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:35
Financial
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:39
unicorns are dangerous
Ram Mohan - SSAC
01:56:33
and mythical :) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn]
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:22
'tis a balance indeed!
Ram Mohan - SSAC
02:01:12
@Cheryl, Double, Double, Toil and Trouble may be an apt subtitle for all this work!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:01:26
:-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:05:14
Time check @Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:43
it is a removal of names from the public domain, for the benefit of corporation entities, looks like something against the public interest
Maxim Alzoba
02:07:49
a name collision mitigation with “use of this hardware might be dangerous due to non proper DNS configuration” helps vendors to issue patches
Suzanne Woolf - SSAC
02:07:52
@maxim we tend to feel that dedicating one or a small set of names, unambiguously, actually reduces “removal of names” by disincentivizing squatting on arbitrary names.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:16
LOTS covered off today and very good to do so... I think this opportunity to interact with SSAC on their observations and concerns re our work at this stage has been a boon and a great help indeed from my (obviously biased) POV... Thanks *very much* to everyone who has been able to attend today and we note the recording and transcripts etc., will be valuable for those not able to attend... Thank you Rod and SSAC; Thank you SubPro Team and Bye for now!
Maxim Alzoba
02:08:32
basically it is a recommendation to care about companies who do not care about others
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:34
Time @Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
02:08:56
thanks all for the discussion
Annebeth Lange
02:09:25
Thanks for an interesting discussion. Bye!
Ram Mohan - SSAC
02:09:35
Have to leave
Ram Mohan - SSAC
02:09:37
Bye all
Paul McGrady
02:09:58
Thank you all! This has been a great session. Lots to think about.
Karen Lentz
02:10:11
Thank you!
Martin Sutton
02:10:12
thx to SSAC
Phil Buckingham
02:10:18
thanks rod and ram
Elaine Pruis
02:10:19
Thank you