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

Thu Feb 6 18:54:42 UTC 2020

Thanks for your email and the context Anne!

One related question to you, Rubens, or anyone else qualified to answer:

Who were the technical experts on this subject in Work Track 4?

Thanks,

-danny

On 2020-02-06 12:56, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> Danny - I am responding in part for Karen's benefit since other
> panelists may already be aware of deliberations in Sub Pro on the name
> collisions topic.
> 
> I think you are correct that the data referenced in Work Track 4 of
> Sub Pro was not conclusive.   NCAP is in a position to be more
> thorough.   I applaud the Sub Pro Work Track 4 work led by Jeff and
> Rubens related to a possible recommendation to create a "DO NOT APPLY"
> list and to develop a method for identifying levels of risk in the
> low, medium, and high categories for strings not designated as "DO NOT
> APPLY".  I am not sure how these categories discussed in Sub Pro would
> relate to a possible recommendation to allow registrants to submit
> mitigation plans to be analyzed by ICANN on a "String-by-string"
> basis.  (That seems a bit unwieldy and expensive and no mention was
> made of a possibility for public comment on such individualized
> mitigation proposals.)
> 
> Although Sub Pro has not yet considered the language of its Final
> Report, some in Sub Pro Leadership have said that since no Consensus
> appears to exist on adopting a new Name Collision Framework, the Sub
> Pro WG is required to fall back to the 90-day Controlled Interruption
> practice used in the 2012 round,   However,  numerous public
> commenters filed comment on the Sub Pro Initial Report stating that
> Sub Pro should "defer to the SSAC".  I assume the Sub Pro Final Report
> will note the "deference to SSAC" but it appears possible that
> Leadership may not feel comfortable designating that as a Consensus
> opinion.  (I am sure Jeff and Rubens will advise when that discussion
> occurs - and may even send the proposed text of  the Final Report to
> the NCAP if we establish a way to work together.)
> 
> Thanks to Jim for adding the note about "consider the work of Sub Pro"
> to the Discussion notes on answering the Board's questions.
> Notably, Sub Pro has no jurisdiction over policy recommendations in
> relation to the .HOME, .CORP, or .MAIL.  applications made in 2012
> that have not been withdrawn.  But it's reasonable to assume that if
> the GNSO recommends (and the Board approves) submission of individual
> mitigation proposals relative to future applied-for strings on a
> case-by-case basis, those 2012 applicants would be quite likely to
> press for similar consideration.
> 
> 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)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Danny
> McPherson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 7:34 PM
> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Revised draft of NCAP Study 1 report
> 
> [EXTERNAL]
> 
> On 2020-02-05 20:14, Rubens Kuhl 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.
> 
> 
> Ahh, that.  So nothing anywhere near conclusive.
> 
> -danny
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> 
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss [2]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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 [3]) and the website Terms of
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [4]). 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.
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://lrrc.com/
> [2] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
> [3] https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
> [4] https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos