[NCAP-Discuss] Honeypot refresher

[Rubens Kuhl]

> 
> As stated in the document, JAS selected the Controlled Interruption solution "that offers the most value with the least risk".  I think revisiting this is not Groundhog Day.  That was a unilateral decision by JAS and ICANN and I understand why it was expeditious and convenient given the backlog of applicants and businesses awaiting delegation (because this work didn't happen before applications were accepted), but it was not a community decision and the occurrence and risks of collisions still persist, and are arguably worse in some areas with more internet-connected devices that may present new risks (or opportunities) that use the DNS for rendezvous and service discovery functions.  Further, what labels should be reserved v. the "constrained" set in the original AGB (e.g., at TLD or SLD level).

Just a correction: by the time JAS and ICANN introduced the controlled interruption solution, there were already gTLDs delegated by using what was called Alternative Path to Delegation(APD), where labels observed in DITL captures were excluded from registration but all others were allowed. Only a few gTLDs classified as medium risk were excluded from APD. The only bottleneck at that point was ICANN's capacity to evaluate applications and contract with registries.


Rubens


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200430/0ce6d8ba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200430/0ce6d8ba/signature.asc>