[NCAP-Discuss] Revised draft of NCAP Study 1 report

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 22:00, Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2020, at 2:56 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, the 2012 data suggests that 60 days would be enough.
> 
> Can you provide a pointer to that analysis?

Transcripts of Subsequent Procedures PDP, specifically Work Track 4.

> 
> 
>>> Can ICANN release the collision reports to the broader community for analysis (Section 5 states this could be provided for the authors of Studies 2 and 3 as needed and appropriate)?
>> 
>> I would see that as violating the confidentiality that people expected when referring cases to ICANN. But if consent was obtained from each and every complainant, that would be different.
> 
> I’m sure there are some useful observations and abstractions here that would be worthwhile.

That's why ICANN is already planning on giving them to a contractor that has a duty of non-disclosure.


Rubens

-------------- 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/20200205/83edffcc/signature.asc>