[NCAP-Discuss] Draft final Study 1 report

[Jeff Schmidt]

I for one wholeheartedly agree with Karen’s new content and her courage to state what many of us have thought for years.  Very refreshing, thoughtful, and intellectually honest approach.  Nice work Karen.

As I said in my August 2019 “no-bid” email (and 2015 “Phase Two” JAS Report), Collisions are well understood.  We know under what circumstances they occur, and we have real global-scale practical operational experience and data after delegating > 1,200 TLDs over the past 6 years.  The Name Collision Reports data (and Figure 1) in Karen’s report are particularly powerful.  What we collectively did back then worked.  Period.  

To get ahead of calls for more analysis paralysis, consider these facts.  Starting in 2014, ICANN did everything it could to create awareness, educate, and solicit information about collision occurrences.  During that time, > 1,200 TLDs were added to the root.  Karen and others have scoured Internet forums for collisions reporting.  The result of all of that is the data in Section 4.2 in Karen’s report.  In particular: “The vast majority of new TLDs delegated since July 2014 have not been the subject of any name collision reports to ICANN” and “Of all the reports to ICANN, only one led to action by a registry.” This is not “absence of evidence” but rather “evidence of absence.”  Moreover, if that isn’t success then what is?

Jeff



On 4/24/20, 11:04 AM, "NCAP-Discuss on behalf of Matt Larson" <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org on behalf of matt.larson at icann.org> wrote:

    Dear colleagues,

    Attached is Karen's draft of the final version of Study 1. Changes since the last version are highlighted, but the significant updates are in Section 5 (Datasets) and the addition of an executive summary and a conclusion.

    OCTO has told Karen all along that she should feel free to reach whatever conclusion she felt warranted by the research she's done. We have not attempted to undermine her professional integrity by leading her in any particular direction.

    We'd be grateful for your review and comment. We'll be following the same process as we did with the draft version of the report: this group has a chance to comment first and then the report will go out for a formal Public Comment.

    In order to stay on schedule to deliver the final report to the Board by 30 June as we've promised, we need any feedback from this group by next Friday, 1 May.

    Thanks,

    Matt