[NCAP-Discuss] Please review the Study 1 proposal

[Jay Daley]

Hi Danny

> On 23/05/2019, at 7:52 AM, 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://docs.google.com/document/d/15f1Kh2vuY0yF9SelocGrPOguYPXDeFYZ0lTqx3fU_gI/edit)
>> 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 but regardless, I think you've got most of items 1.b and 1.c totally backwards.  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?

I drafted this text based on extensive discussion in the SSAC WP that was set up before this project was opened up.  It was presented on at two ICANN meetings (as well as multiple SSAC meetings) and referenced in two discussion group meetings as well as being circulated to the list.  No it is not backwards, it is exactly as agreed through that process.

The original SSAC WP consensus on this included the recommended advice to give, which is basically "this happens all the time in the DNS, there are other policies that might be applicable but that’s not for us to say".  We can agree the exact text later.

I should also note that there were a number of calls in the DG for comments on this document, so this is way past the 11th hour.

best
Jay


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -danny
> 
> Study Tasks
> Finalise the definition of name collision, which is currently:
> In scope and subject of data studies
> User Alice uses .EXAMPLE in a private context and .EXAMPLE is now delegated in the public DNS.  User Alice suffers adverse impact as a result.
> Registrant Alice uses EXAMPLE as a label anywhere except as a private use TLD, and relies on search list processing where the label EXAMPLE is the terminal label, as an intermediate step in that search list processing.
> (e.g.  User searches for dashboard.example.com by typing in dashboard.example)
> .EXAMPLE is now registered in the public DNS and the search list processing behaviour of Alice now changes.
> In scope but will be addressed with general advice and not subject of data studies
> Registrant Alice uses EXAMPLE.COM (or EXAMPLE.TLD where TLD is any current TLD in the public DNS) and .EXAMPLE is now registered in the public DNS.  Registrant Alice now receives multiple queries as a result of search list processing of users of domains under .EXAMPLE
> Registrant Alice uses .EXAMPLE as a TLD in the public DNS and then lets the registration expire.  Registrant Bob then registers and delegates .EXAMPLE. Traffic intended for Alice’s use of .EXAMPLE is now received by Bob’s use of .EXAMPLE
> Registrant Alice uses EXAMPLE.COM and then lets the registration expire.  Registrant Bob then registers and delegates EXAMPLE.COM. Traffic intended for Alice’s use of EXAMPLE.COM is now received by Bob’s use of EXAMPLE.COM
> Out of scope
> Registrant Alice uses .EXAMPLE as a TLD in the public DNS. Registrant Bob registers and delegates .EHAMPLE as a TLD in the public DNS.  Alice now receives bit flip traffic intended for Bob and vice versa.
> General IDN confusion issues
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss

-- 
Jay Daley
jay at daley.org.nz
+64 21 678840
skype: jaydaley
twitter: @jay_daley

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20190523/75356a42/attachment-0001.html>