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

Jeff Neuman jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Thu Feb 6 19:31:08 UTC 2020


Danny,

A list of the members of Work Track 4 can be found here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493251; the full membership list of SubPro is here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001978

The initial Report can be found here:  https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/subsequent-procedures-initial-overarching-issues-work-tracks-1-4-03jul18-en.pdf Section 2.7.8. p. 156-164.

A review of the comments received are here:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit#gid=1419063077 (Tab 2.7.8)

With respect to the 60 day discussion, I believe that was taken from the JAS Final Report:  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-final-28oct15-en.pdf and subsequent discussions.  We also had Jeff Schmidt come in and discuss the report and findings as well.  If you want that transcript, I can try to dig it up.

As Anne indicated, our discussions are not final and there is language about having deference to the SSAC and an acknowledgement of the work of this group.  But there are also some distinctions I want to make:

1.  The group is much more of a policy oriented group and acknowledges that it does not have the same level of expertise of this group.
2.  The group's initial recommendations are based on our best efforts as a policy group to come up with common sense solutions based on the information available to the group.
3.  The group is also addressing the question of what happens if the next round launches prior to the work of this NCAP work being completed, and does not make the assumption that there definitely will be a Phase 2 or a Phase 3 of the NCAP.

I would be happy to answer any questions about the work of the group.


Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

-----Original Message-----
From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 1:55 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Revised draft of NCAP Study 1 report


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

_______________________________________________
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.
________________________________
 The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>


More information about the NCAP-Discuss mailing list