[NCAP-Discuss] Data needed for Study 2 Harm Analysis

Thu Apr 2 15:07:31 UTC 2020

[top post only]

Jeff,
The Phase 1 report, which is a fine document, was produced in a 
technical editor / writer / reporter’s capacity not an “expert” or 
subject matter expert on name collisions.

The NCAP working group is executing the defined goals outlined in the 
final SSAC Proposal for the Name Collision Analysis Project[1]. The 
first goal was to “examine all prior work on the issue of name 
collisions and produce a summary report that brings forwards important 
knowledge from prior work into this study, and which can act as a primer 
for those new to the subject.”  The report has done exactly that, IMO.

Now the group is working on the second and third goals in which “The 
second goal is to create a data repository with all the supporting rules 
in place as to how the data will be managed and processed and the third 
goal is to gather data from past studies, identify gaps, if any, and 
secure any additional data that is required.”  It's unclear too me how 
identifying the data set gaps are in some way wasting time and money? 
The role of the "independent neutral *reporter*" was to produce a 
summary report - not to be a name collision expert and identify data 
gaps – that is supposed to be the role of the WG, where many of us have 
subject matter expertise.

I'll defer to the trio of chairs if I've missed something, but I don't 
think so...

-danny

[1]https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=%2F79437474%2F105385595%2FFINAL+NCAP+Proposal+September+2018_Redacted.pdf

On 2020-04-02 10:15, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> Anne,
> 
> With respect, I have to disagree that Study 1 was something to
> leverage.  We had an expert spend full time looking into this and she
> drafted a report that was approved by all of us for public comment.
> To just use that report as something to leverage In my view would have
> been a waste of the community's money and substituting our judgement
> for that of the independent expert.
> 
> This is taken directly from the contractor's Statement of Work
> (https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=%2F79437474%2F111387705%2FNCAP+Study+1+30+May+Proposal.pdf)
> . I have only included the relevant tasks.
> 
> Study Tasks
> 
> 4. Identify gaps in the datasets used by previous studies, resulting
> in a list of additional datasets or data providers that would be
> necessary to successfully complete Studies 2 and
> 
> 3.
> 
> 5. Assess the potential availability of these additional datasets.
> 
> 6. Produce a report on the results of Study 1.
> 
> 7. Undertake a public consultation as defined by the OCTO on the
> results of Study 1.
> 
> 8. Evaluate and recommend to the Board how to proceed with name
> collision research as a
> 
> result of Study 1
> 
> This is what the contractor has done.  For us to just use all of that
> as something to leverage and for us to brainstorm and essentially redo
> Tasks 4-8 does not make sense to me when we hired an independent
> neutral expert that already did this work and no doubt spent a good
> deal of the community's money.
> 
> I may be in the minority here, but if we are going to ask the Board
> for yet more money to do this exercise then we need to rely on the
> work done when we do get the money to spend.
> 
> JEFF NEUMAN
> 
> Senior Vice President
> 
> COM LAUDE | VALIDEUS
> 
> D: +1.703.635.7514
> 
> E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> 
> FROM: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> SENT: Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:34 AM
> TO: ncap-discuss at icann.org
> CC: James Galvin <jgalvin at afilias.info>; Patrik Fältström
> <paf at frobbit.se>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Matt Larson
> <matt.larson at icann.org>
> SUBJECT: Data needed for Study 2 Harm Analysis
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Regarding yesterday's conversation as to the review of the document
> prepared by the new third Co-Chair and Jeff Neuman's comments about
> that, I agree we could substitute "harm" for "danger" wherever
> appropriate as per Jeff's suggestion.
> 
> With respect to the notion that the document is somehow outside the
> parameters of our work because it was not submitted to the expert for
> Study 1, I had understood the scope of Study 1 to be the collection of
> existing studies and bodies of work and experience that analyzed name
> collision risk.
> 
> The Co-Chairs also wanted to stay productive as to how we would
> address Board questions and what would be required during Study 2 in
> order to answer the Board's questions.  A chart was developed and it
> was the discussion of that chart that led to new ideas about data that
> had not previously been studied that would be useful in identify the
> "harm".  In this regard, I had never understood that the "gap
> analysis' undertaken in Study 1 could be read as a limitation in
> relation to the scope of Study 2, which, to my knowledge, has not yet
> been scoped.
> 
> So I am still confused as to the notion that all data inquiries going
> forward into Study 2 are somehow limited by the references to the
> existing body of knowledge compiled in Study 1.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Anne
> 
> ANNE E. AIKMAN-SCALESE
> 
> Of Counsel
> 
> 520.629.4428 office
> 
> 520.879.4725 fax
> 
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> 
> _____________________________
> 
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> 
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
> 
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> 
> lrrc.com [1]
> 
> Because what matters
> 
> to you, matters to us.(tm)
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of
> this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment
> to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any
> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> -------------------------
>  The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to
> the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied
> in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have
> received this message in error, please return it to the sender
> (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and
> immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude
> Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your
> responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any
> attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for
> statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf
> of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group
> includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England
> and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30
> Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a
> company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291
> and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN
> England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company
> number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street,
> Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA
> and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600,
> McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company
> registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21
> Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see
> www.comlaude.com [2]
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lrrc.com/
> [2] https://comlaude.com
> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.