ICANN 75: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===IDNs=== | ===IDNs=== | ||
* The working group for the [[EPDP-IDNs|Expedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names]] discussed its progress, namely that it will break the process into "chunks." The WG will publish the Initial Report in two parts. Part 1 will cover charter questions and recommendations about TLD variant management and part 2 will concern charter questions and recommendations about second-level variant management.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> The team also reviewed a strawman process flow of [[ | * The working group for the [[EPDP-IDNs|Expedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names]] discussed its progress, namely that it will break the process into "chunks." The WG will publish the Initial Report in two parts. Part 1 will cover charter questions and recommendations about TLD variant management and part 2 will concern charter questions and recommendations about second-level variant management.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> The team also reviewed a strawman process flow of the [[New gTLD Program]] to analyze the feasibility of a stand-alone round for existing gTLD registries to apply for variants and/or activating variants between application rounds. | ||
* [[James Caulfield]] of ICANN Org's [[Risk Management]] discussed issues around introducing TLD variant labels and the need for a common understanding and an agreed mechanism to quantify the risks, in terms of likelihood (occurrence) and severity (seriousness of the consequences). He recommended considering the String Similarity Review as a way to understand the proportionality of the proposed Hybrid Model in addressing the risks associated with failure modes. Issues could include denial of service if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y, and after typing the address (http://example.X), the connection does not work as http://example.X is not registered. There could be a misconnection if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y. After clicking on http://example.Y, the user arrives at a site controlled by a registrant different from http://example.X, or a misconnection due to variants blocked to avoid string similarity.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> | * [[James Caulfield]] of ICANN Org's [[Risk Management]] discussed issues around introducing TLD variant labels and the need for a common understanding and an agreed mechanism to quantify the risks, in terms of likelihood (occurrence) and severity (seriousness of the consequences). He recommended considering the String Similarity Review as a way to understand the proportionality of the proposed Hybrid Model in addressing the risks associated with failure modes. Issues could include denial of service if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y, and after typing the address (http://example.X), the connection does not work as http://example.X is not registered. There could be a misconnection if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y. After clicking on http://example.Y, the user arrives at a site controlled by a registrant different from http://example.X, or a misconnection due to variants blocked to avoid string similarity.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> | ||