[NCAP-Discuss] NCAP Discussion Group F2F at ICANN66
Steve Sheng
steve.sheng at icann.org
Sat Nov 2 13:52:10 UTC 2019
Thank you Kim,
The rough notes are included below.
Best
Steve
Agenda:
1. Welcome and introductions
2. Administrative matters
3. Definition of Name Collisions
4. Review of Study 1
5. Discussion of SubPro letter to the ICANN Board
6. Review of timeline, overall project plan and other logistics
7. Next steps
8. AOB
9. Adjournment
High level summary notes:
Welcome and Introductions:
* Since the last meeting, the following people joined NCAP. Brantly Milligan (observer), Tom Barrett (observer), and Greg Shatan ( from observer to member).
* ICANN org chose Scarfone Cybersecurity (https://www.scarfonecybersecurity.com [scarfonecybersecurity.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scarfonecybersecurity.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=O16Ko7V_SvDE5jZHxFQsUEzduEwmIp0AxPl2Gzy-KTc&m=eqFyw3ooEUMxC0eoOtIuSncHKbzKvsMcgU6as0-I6CM&s=pb6yYvQ_uZqZ2cwwbMXYQScJn7csmaKbLF95VU_zM4s&e=>), whose principal is Karen Scarfone, as the contractor for Study 1.
Administrative Matters
* There will be face-to-face meetings.
* The mailing lists are open.
* We are setting up a process to receive data and analysis. Any one who wants to submit data or analysis need to fill out an SOI along with it.
* Anne: Will there be a readout of the NCAP meeting at the regular SSAC public meeting?
* Jim: Good idea.
* Engagement with the contractor: Any actions for Karen can only come from Matt Larson only.
Board Resolutions:
* The reasons for SSAC’s proposal of three studies are ICANN Board resolutions. One resolution has nine questions.
* Rod: Ultimately, when all the contractor work is done, it is the SSAC’s responsibility to answer all the Board’s questions. We have broaden the participation beyond SSAC members. Thank you for spending your time on this topic.
Definition of Name Collisions
* We have a basic name collisions definition. https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=%2F79437474%2F111387704%2FDefinition+of+Name+Collision+and+Scope+of+Work+for+the+NCAP.pdf
* We think this is final. However, I want to give the opportunity here to look again.
* We have the definition proposal for public comment, and get some feedback. We did get some. The admin committee did not think of anything to update. But I want to give an opportunity to provide feedback.
* Steve C: This is a bit opaque.
* Jim G: We have some examples here in the original definition.
* Steve C: These are still hard, for anyone without the background.
* Jim G: The takeaway is that we need to think about who is the audience for our product. There is an implied context here.
* Jeff N: For now, it is good to be steeped in the weeds. When you have the final product, you need to make is easily understandable to others, such as business persons or congressional staffers. When we first discussed it, we have these types of collisions but may not discuss further. So we come up with these categories.
* Anne: Could we have something in the interim for the community to understand? Instead of from the end.
* Paul H: I would not do all three sets. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say the definition is the two sentences above plus section A.
* Jeff N: I want to disagree with Paul H. In 2012 round we had theoretical examples, but none of them came to fruition. I disagree with Anne about Subpro. Subpro took a different approach, as we were just reviewing the 2012 round. We asked the group, and ICANN, “did anyone notice any issues?” No one was able to give examples, except the one with google that is quickly taken care of.
* Jim: We have the technical writer. Let’s allow her to do some work.
* Matt: I don’t think we can rely on the contractor to define name collisions.
* Jim: The definition stands as it is. What I have taken onboard, is whether some additional context, examples, and explanatory text be added.
* Jeff N: The contractor should proceed with this definition. Perhaps another deliverable for this group is an educational material for the community.
* Rubin: Subpro sub track 4 encourages outreach. We can add NCAP to that.
Public Comment
* Two comments received. Do you have any comments or concerns?
* None.
Review of Study 1
* Study deliverables: initial report plus a final report.
* Jim: Would like this to be an iterative process.
* Matt: Anyone in the group has document or pointers to the documentation. Please send it to the mailing list. The report would be better if it is not just Karen looking at things. But please send it to the mailing list.
* Matt T: My SOI contains some documentations.
* Anne: Anything from IETF, given Jay’s new role?
* Jim: I would say it is incumbent of this group to find those documentations.
* Steve S: Staff can keep the repository up to date. At the end of the day, it is up to Matt to decide whether the contractor should study it.
* Karen S has no comments.
Review of timelines, overall project plan and other logistics
* About 8 month duration, from the original duration of six months.
* Anne: At what point are we developing a gating test so that name collisions issues can be evaluated long before the whole process of ICANN staff evaluation, projection processes, appeal’s mechanisms?
Discussion of SubPro Letter to the ICANN Board
* GNSO asked the Board (1) dependencies between the NCAP and the SubPro, and (2) when must those dependencies be addressed?
The GNSO Council notes that there are a number of milestones to complete prior to the delegation of additional new gTLDs. Major milestones include:
* a) Completion of the Policy Development Process;
* b) Policy implementation including development of next Application Guidebook;
* c) Notice of the commencement of the next round of new gTLDs;
* d) Opening of the actual application window;
* e) Delegation of new gTLDs into the root.
* Jeff N: As NCAP work, I want to get some clarity once and for all, what work can go forward? And what work cannot go forward?
* We have phase 1, phases 2 and 3 is unclear.
* At the end of the day, I am trying to get done the policy development process, after that there are a lot of implementation work. Then there is the announcement, that after a period of time to collect applications. Then can we accept applications? Maybe we can accept applications but not going into delegations.
* I want people get out of the vague, get the lobbying work out of the way. As a co-chair, I don’t care which one we decide, but I need concrete guidance.
* Jim: Thanks for that. I agree with you for predictability. We should have a discussion here.
* Anne: We are now in much stronger footing, we hope we can collaborate. I don’t think subpro should stop and wait for NCAP.
* Jeff N: The board also submits a letter to GNSO, so as ALAC. I want everyone to be on the same page. Even if NCAP finished in two or three years, it may still run into the applications.
* Anne: Our work is to be done Q1 2020, the Board would like to be faced with the recommended policy end of Q2. Phase 2 is unclear.
* Jim X: From subpro, the letter to get clarification from the Board what do you mean?
* Jim: is there something for this group to do?
* I think first we need to understand the letter and the context.
* Other than that, there does not seem to be an explicit action for NCAP.
* Jeff N: Phase 2 is really the meat.
* Jim: Thinking aloud. Looking for opportunities of collaboration. There is significant overlap in producing the AGB and study 2. I think that’s an opportunity for us to make sure we stay aligned. We have overlap in membership for both groups.
* Jeff N: I agree with that. I think if there is study 2, these two groups (NCAP, and implementation group for the applicant guidebook) should coordinate.
* NOTE: The Board has responded to the GNSO letter.
* Jeff N: The other part is if study 2 comes up with policy recommendations, the implementation group cannot do policy.
* Anne: Maybe keeping a work track open in GNSO, so that the rest of the AGB can move forward.
Next steps
* Study 2 - statement of work?
* Jim: Speaking personally, there is value in producing the statement work: 1) to better understand what is needed to answer the Board's question, and 2) to identify other areas that need to be studied.
* Jeff N: One thing that might help is get a touch point from karen. Is there data out there that there is useful to study for study 2, or maybe the opposite, there is no additional data.
* Jim: Agree. Every meeting we have we will have a standard item on interacting with the contractor.
* Anne: One the deliverable for study 1 is to identify the gaps. If karen identify the gaps earlier on, we could have better discussion.
* Jim: Action for us is to review the 10 questions from the Board, and start to review the 10 questions from the Board to see what those questions means, and discuss what we need to answer those questions.
* Matt: I need to think about it.
* Jim: So to clarify, we identify something and ask Karen is that something she has observed in the research, or those has been studied. If she has not seen those, we need to note that as a gap. So we are not given Karen new work.
* Resuming regular meetings: next meeting
* The group will try to meet the first week of December, and then weekly in December 2019. Start with weekly meetings in January 2020. (staff action)
AOB
Tom: Will there be advice for people who are leaking queries to root?
Jim: There is no guarantee that you can reach them.
Jim: For the part that are under ICANN community’s control. We’d provide advice to those who have collision traffic on what to do.
Steve C: There is no analysis that an effort of outreach will reduce the amount of leakage. It is not the remit of this group, but the general hygiene is a good and positive idea.
Paul H: ICANN did that in 2012, a guide to IT professionals, and tell people if you are leaking them, here is what you should do. If there are revisions to that, it can be done. It has some impact.
Steve C: How effective is that?
Paul H: It is hard to measure. I got some anecdotal evidence that it is good.
Steve C: Were you able to direct to the root causes?
Paul H: No, definitely not.
Steve C: If the Cisco and Microsoft documents changes. Would it have an effect?
Paul H: Yes, Microsoft has changed the documentation.
Steve C: Any there is no changes in the measured effect?
Paul H: No change, it is so noisy.
Tom: What about alternative resolution technologies?
Paul H: There is no formal recommendation, but informal recommendation is don’t do it.
Jeff: There are some Crypto currency private TLDs. We are interested to see whether there are collisions for those.
DECISIONS / ACTION ITEMS:
* For future SSAC public meetings at ICANN, include an agenda for a readout of the most recent NCAP meeting. (SSAC action)
* The contractor should proceed with the current definition. The NCAP WG add a potential deliverable to provide some educational material for the community on the definition of name collisions. (NCAP WP action)
* Staff keep the NCAP background work repository up to date. Anyone in the group who contribute pointers on background work should send it to the mailing list. Matt to decide whether the contractor should study those. (NCAP Admin Committee action)
* Add a standing agenda item to every future NCAP meeting to interact with the contractor. The contractor can bring up any issues or concerns (NCAP Admin Committee action)
* NCAP WG will try to meet the first week of December. Then weekly in December 2019. Starting Jan 2020, the group will try to meet weekly (staff action)
* For the next meeting, the NCAP WG to start to review the ten questions from the Board to see: 1) what those questions means, 2) what needs to be done to answer those questions. The group may also have an opportunity to interact with the contractor to see if she has seen research or results that point to the those.
* Add a break for future NCAP F2F meetings (NCAP Admin action)
* Coordination between subpro and its follow up efforts with NCAP. (NCAP Admin committee action)
Best
Steve
From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson at icann.org>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 9:46 AM
To: "ncap-discuss at icann.org" <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] NCAP Discussion Group F2F at ICANN66
Dear NCAP Discussion Group,
Please find the notes from yesterday’s F2F meeting here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvEPT1vU7WCdrDUKUshs1eNYJgu5vIQuiNhFotQRV24/edit?pli=1# [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1WvEPT1vU7WCdrDUKUshs1eNYJgu5vIQuiNhFotQRV24_edit-3Fpli-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=O16Ko7V_SvDE5jZHxFQsUEzduEwmIp0AxPl2Gzy-KTc&m=ri1xUITu0m_wk0dD7gCg_Wj3X4br56Vlwp7V89f8HLQ&s=nl09V0T2alMXpIEP_n5KTQaoZx-k_vgnKjm2_AucGC8&e=>
Here is the recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/Ab-8xWI-f0AWtv6ao97oh9bUyopZXjMj4yn-ya7Cs5qwIumekTziMw?startTime=1572629426000 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_recording_share_Ab-2D8xWI-2Df0AWtv6ao97oh9bUyopZXjMj4yn-2Dya7Cs5qwIumekTziMw-3FstartTime-3D1572629426000&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=O16Ko7V_SvDE5jZHxFQsUEzduEwmIp0AxPl2Gzy-KTc&m=ri1xUITu0m_wk0dD7gCg_Wj3X4br56Vlwp7V89f8HLQ&s=DgFbgBSmn47MHL8JA6AMHNO5FrtYhSSH_2RP5xjmPsY&e=>
Thank you,
Kim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20191102/642dc0ce/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCAP-Discuss
mailing list