[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: Please review the Study 1 proposal

[Steve Crocker]

Oh, my.  This triggers a fresh thought about an ancient subject.

Registration of a name that's never been used in any context is "clean."
Registration of a name that's appeared on the public Internet comes with a
history.  That history might be from a previous registration.  It might be
because it was used privately but leaked.  Either way, if a name with
history becomes registered, there will be traffic headed to that name that
was not generated or encouraged by the registrant.  Thinking about this
afresh, one could imagine insisting that a previously registered name
should not be reregistered unless either

o The previous registrant and the new registrant agree, i.e. a transfer

o The background traffic drops to a very low level.

This approach would, of course, kill the whole drop catching business.  I
suspect this is a bridge too far, but the posts did cause me to think along
the line that a previously registered name and an unregistered but leaked
name share the quality that the next registrant will get traffic (s)he did
not generate.  In the case of drop-catched name, this is monetized to the
benefit of the new registrant, but perhaps not to the benefit of the others
in the monetization chain.  In the case of leaked names, we have the
consequences that have led to this study.

Cheers,

Steve



On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:14 PM Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:

>
>
> Err, my bad Matt, thanks for the prompt response and clarification!
>
> NCAP WP - not sure I've seen it before but my objection stands, why
> would we include a new registration of an expired domain as a name
> collision?
>
>
> -danny
>
>
> On 2019-05-22 16:01, Matt Larson wrote:
> >> On May 22, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:
> >> On 2019-05-22 11:00, Matt Larson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks,
> >>> Please review the NCAP Study 1 proposal
> >>>
> >>
> > (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_15f1Kh2vuY0yF9SelocGrPOguYPXDeFYZ0lTqx3fU-5FgI_edit&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=xhCX8vQGcsNMzNMbgIokNle9Mpt6sQ45tM98iwh4H0w&m=FK7lldDQtv6Xf0m5ObQvGlhh3CcMbIegNH7WiJjSQwM&s=2O-Yn5V2FlLp0uaQW2darHQw9M9BcRBJwN_HZwMDOVs&e=
> )
> >>> before today's call, if possible.
> >>> In particular, please note comments from Steve Sheng and me.
> >>> Thanks and talk to everyone in a few hours,
> >>
> >> Matt,
> >> A little more time to review would have been helpful
> >
> > Please see Steve Sheng's message from May 16 copied below: the content
> > you are commenting on has been in the document since May 8 when Jay
> > suggested it.
> >
> >> but regardless, I think you've got most of items 1.b and 1.c totally
> >> backwards.
> >
> >  The document is not mine nor OCTO's; it is a work product of the NCAP
> > DG, so your comments should be addressed to the rest of the NCAP DG.
> >
> >> TO suggest new registrations of expired domains are in scope of name
> >> collisions surprises me, and that bit flips or other things that may
> >> result in persistent collisions are out of scope seems to ignore the
> >> immense amount of SSAC work that led to this WP.  I think perhaps
> >> both may be out of scope but where you arrived with expired domains
> >> being re-registered as in scope confuses me, can you explain the
> >> genesis of that in any dialog we've had or in the SSAC direction
> >> provided?
> >
> > Likewise, those questions should be addressed to the NCAP DG.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >> FROM: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org>
> >>
> >> SUBJECT: [NCAP-DISCUSS] LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS: STUDY 1 PROPOSAL
> >>
> >> DATE: May 16, 2019 at 4:12:15 PM EDT
> >>
> >> TO: "ncap-discuss at icann.org" <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> >>
> >> Dear NCAP discussion group,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the feedback on the study 1 proposal. Please see
> >> the updated version as of 16 May 2019.
> >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15f1Kh2vuY0yF9SelocGrPOguYPXDeFYZ0lTqx3fU_gI/edit?usp=sharing
> >>
> >>
> >> The NCAP Co-chairs would like to initiate a last call for
> >> comments on this document.
> >>
> >> Please provide your inputs, if any, by close of business,_ Monday
> >> 20 May 2019._  After that, the document will be finalized pending
> >> copy edits and send to ICANN office of the CTO.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20190522/0710dd49/attachment.html>