[NCAP-Discuss] Clarifications

[Justine Chew]

+1 Patrik

A side question for the co-chairs: Does what we're doing now affect the
Final Study 1 Report in any way? Since that has gone out for public
comment, is there a remedial step that should be taken (by OCTO) to address
our current discussion?

Thanks,
Justine
------


On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 04:17, Patrik Fältström via NCAP-Discuss <
ncap-discuss at icann.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200514/f423d594/attachment-0001.html>