[NCAP-Discuss] Clarifications

[Patrik Fältström]

First, thanks Jim for leading this discussion. It was indeed a successful meeting.

My suggestion is that our interpretation of the board resolution is that it is within the context of "delegating [and possibly undelegating] a TLD in the root zone".

When a delegation is done, a number of things can happen, and we already know that IDN confusability and bit flip is not there. We have agreement on that.

We agree it is within scope to delegate a string that have never been delegated, but have been in use in various contexts in such a way that the delegation have unfortunate secondary effects.

We discuss whether redelegation of a TLD is within scope (i.e. people that where using foo.example, and now get issues when foo.example is created again).

I think it is within scope.

But key is that we interpret the board resolution to *only* be about the specific context of adding (and possibly removing) a string from the root zone. And it is within that context we can define "name collision" which was question (1) from ICANN board:

> (1) a proper definition for name collision and the underlying reasons why strings that manifest name collisions are so heavily used;

We are not able to, and would like to not spend/waste time and money on trying to answer that question in the generic context (i.e. talk about abstract name spaces overlapping etc...).

Suggested question to the board:

The NCAP Discussion Group have been looking at the questions from the board. We do have the following interpretation and would like to have a clarification whether the board agrees with us.

One of the Whereas statements say:

> Whereas, on 18 May 2013, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution regarding SAC057, commissioning a study on the use of TLDs that are not currently delegated at the root level of the public DNS in enterprises.

This also matches the discussion group view of the direct actions the ICANN Board can do, namely approve delegations and undelegation of TLDs, i.e. add and remove TLDs. The discussion group interpret the questions from the board to be within this quite narrow scope.

This would imply that question number 1 from the board:

> (1) a proper definition for name collision and the underlying reasons why strings that manifest name collisions are so heavily used;

...is a request to look at all different issues that could happen when a TLD is delegated, and make a proper definition of which ones of these are name collisions? And not an ask for a formal definition of "name collision" which could even imply a request for a definition of the term that do not even be within the context of the domain name system.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200513/39003b4f/signature.asc>