[Ssr2-review] Feedback on Recommendation 28

[Naveed Bin Rais]

Hi KC,

I don't know who wrote the recommendation. The original recommendation has
some clarity problems but I had put my notes in the excel sheet to resolve
those problems and if I remember, I have taken your input at that point
regarding the public comments received on the draft as well as on my
response.

As for the merit of the recommendation itself even after we address the
public comments, I think it can be part of the report. But others can
provide their input. The thursday call might be a good time to talk on the
merit after I draft the text.

Cheers,
Naveed -

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:15 AM k claffy <kc at caida.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Naveed,  I do not even understand the Recommendation.
>
> What specifically does SSR2 want done that has not been done in
> previous reports?  What "solution" does SSR2 want besides the
> existing one (controlled interruption)?
>
> Who wrote this recommendation, and is willing to speak to it now?
>
> I'm sure this recommendation is one of the reasons I thought
> this report was not yet ready for public comment..
>
> k
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:25:18PM +0400, Naveed Bin Rais wrote:
>   Dear All,
>
>   With reference to public comments on recommendation 28 of the draft
> report,
>   I need the team's input to proceed further. There are many aspects of
> this
>   recommendation that I am not familiar with.
>
>   Attached you would find the public comments related to the recommendation
>   and my responses to each of these comments. Please have a look at the
>   attached file and my responses to see if that makes sense. Also, I need
>   your advice related to Row Number 5, 8 and 9 of the attached file.
>
>   Row 5 is a comment from RySG in which they are inquiring whether
>   our recommendation is only related to TLD or it also applies to the
>   second level.
>
>   Row 8: Our recommendation seems to suggest that there should be
>   an independent study related to name collision in addition to NCAP
>   study and then both these studies should be vetted by third parties.
>   This seems to be a two-step process. Is this what we meant by
>   the recommendation?
>
>   Row 9: I need your input about how we can make the reporting
>   criteria (mechanism) SMART.
>
>   Thanks.
>
>   Cheers,
>   Naveed -
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   Ssr2-review mailing list
>   Ssr2-review at icann.org
>   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20201005/ff120ebd/attachment.html>