The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Monday, 06 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 15:00 London, 16:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jhnpz5c
PROPOSED AGENDA:
1. Welcome
2. SOIs
3. Full WG update (if any)
4. Name collisions in legacy gTLDs
5. Name collisions in 2012-round gTLDs
6. AOB
Mp3
AC Chat
Attendance
Dial outs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Apologies: Alan Greenberg, Sarmad Hussain
On audio only:
Notes/Actions:
1. Full WG Update
-- short update -- Call later today at 20:00 UTC to finish going over the first reading of the CC2 questions. Also a full group call tomorrow at 20:00 UTC.
-- Public comment will go through the month of April.
-- Also Work Track 3 call tomorrow at 1500 UTC.
2. Name Collisions in Legacy gTLDs
-- Not related to collisions in future TLDs, but in already delegated TLDs (Slide 6)
Situation 1: use of a previously unregistered domain and Situation 2: use of DNS suffix list
Work Track discussion:
-- One option: Contracted Parties should be forced or could be allowed to take collision domains away from users. Or could provide a contractual option for how to deal with a collision.
-- Second option: Agree or disagree with this statement? "Possible threats do not warrant policy changes."
-- When we say no policy changes, we currently have no policy -- correct? So we accept the policy NGPC? Yes, the status quo.
-- Agree that there is no policy, but allow expedited requests at registrar's discretion.
-- So we specifically say that we do not bring forward the NGPC policy from the previous round.
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: By policy changes, are we saying the policy as promulgated by the NGPC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: status quo
Jeff Neuman: the burden right now to take down a site because of a collission is pretty high. To anyone's knowledge has any name actually been taken down.
Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: not aware of any names being taken down (at least not publically mentioned).
Situation 3: Previously registered domain (slide 7)
Work Track Discussion:
-- Expired Domain Deletion and Expired Registration Recovery policies should be revised - or - possible threats do not warrant policy changes.
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: Should we cover the final recommendations of the JAS report? I think we have had several decades of living with expired domain deletions and expired registrations without much data on name collision causing any significant issues.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: indeed Jeff.
Jeff Neuman: So given that, I agree that no policy changes at this time from us are warranted.
Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd: +1 Jeff.
Edmon: i feel perhaps we should say this is not a new gTLD specific issue, rather than we have no view.
Trang Nguyen: I don't.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: Edmon, recommendation that we do not see the current need for Policy Development, but rather to continue with the status quo, is not "no opinion" IMO, but yes we could note that this is not specifically a *New* gTLD issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: sorry "no view" (different situation from the 2012 round -- and discussion below).
Edmon: thanks for the clarification cheryl
3. Name collisions in 2012 Round gTLDs
-- Name collision framework in 2012 round (slide 9)
-- Required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening collision reports, for the first two years of delegation.
-- Current number of collision reports is XXX occurrences report to ICANN, of which 0 were life-threatening.
Work Track Discussion:
-- 2012 round registries should extend such support beyond the 2-year period - or - occurrence experience does not warrant creation of policy to override what is in the agreements.
[Three WT members agreeing with the second option -- no new policy.]
-- Continue discussion on the mailing list.
4. Currently ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes (slides 10-16)
-- Review and continue discussion in Copenhagen.
