[NCAP-Discuss] Draft final Study 1 report: "re-registered name collisions"

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

I can't figure out what Karen is recommending with respect to the design of Study 2.  If her thoughts on whether or not to proceed are in scope for the RFP re Study 1, it would be helpful to know how Karen would redesign Study 2 in order to facilitate the ability to answer the Board's questions posed via the two 2017 Board Resolutions.  I'm not sure, however, that the Study 1 RFP scope had anything to do with asking her to answer many of those questions.
Anne

-----Original Message-----
From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:32 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Draft final Study 1 report: "re-registered name collisions"

[EXTERNAL]

On 2020-04-30 18:51, Rubens Kuhl wrote:

>
> But it's kinda curious that all opinions I saw defending views such as
> yours work for the same company which happens to be a large incumbent
> registry.

Rubens,
My argument stands on technical merit, not my employer.

That said, you agreed "they're more like a [leak] than a collision"
about two emails ago and you certainly don't work for Verisign :-)  Even then you also conflated Active Directory traffic arriving unexpectedly somewhere it wasn't supposed to go (which likely is escaping its intended [non-RZM] namespace and most certainly not an artifact of "re-registrations" themselves).  The you added that "everybody started using that terminology so it's fruitless to question it at this point in time. We all know what it means." to which I'd reply apparently not -- - accuracy, precision, and nuances like these should matter to this WP and it's work products.

--
In an attempt to be productive here I'll refrain from back and forth with you on this anymore and offer the following to the WP: I'm not sure at this stage what we'd reasonably expect Karen or ICANN Org to do here, perhaps other than a footnote in the report describing the issue with what NCAP handed OCTO.  As I believe Matt Larson alluded to it's certainly not material to the report as written (other than confusing language around scope and suggesting re-registrations are "collisions", which I clearly take issue with).  And while there are certainly well known issues with re-registrations that doesn't make them collisions.

I do hope technical folks in the WP provide Karen and the WP feedback on her report - and perhaps help tease out the issues in the definition, scope and conflict here as well (or we can opt to do that in our comments on the report as I'm pretty sure she's seen my opinion on some sections).

I know there are some very smart people on this list who have said little to nothing, I hope to hear from them (even if they disagree with me).


-danny


_______________________________________________
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.


________________________________

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.