[NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow

Wed Dec 8 22:00:44 UTC 2021

  I have a suggestion regarding the workflow here.

My concern is that once a tld has been added to the root, there will be
pressure to keep it in the root, while ICANN is negotiating terms with the
applicant.  This will disadvantage ICANN and potential objectors in certain
respects.

How about we differentiate between a "temporary delegation" and "approved
delegation"?

Then we could have an explicit step in the workflow whereby the temporary
delegation is terminated and the tld is removed from the root.  This would
apply even if there is near certainty of the tld being eventually delegated.

Tom

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Jim and Jonathan,
>
> I think this discussion gets to the point that Tom Barrett was trying to
> make on today’s call – that there should be a technical mechanism for
> informing a potential applicant of the degree of risk of non-award of the
> contract at some point before application is made and a large application
> fee is paid.  In other words, if the potential applicant has a way to
> assess name collision risk as “high”, then the applicant may not waste
> resources on that particular string.  This is consistent with the notion
> coming out of the Sub Pro Final Report which resulted in a Recommendation
> to the Board that a DO NOT APPLY list be developed prior to the launch of
> the next round.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, we are saying “go ahead and develop your business plan and pay
> your application fee and later if name collision risk is too high and the
> string can’t be delegated, you might get a partial or total refund.”  That
> seems like something that should be avoided.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *James
> Galvin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 8, 2021 2:33 PM
> *To:* Jothan Frakes <jothan at jothan.com>
> *Cc:* NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> An important distinction to make is whether we are using “delegation” in a
> technical sense or a business sense.
>
> In a technical sense, you are correct. A string must be delegated (be
> present in the root zone) in order for controlled interruption and enhanced
> controlled interruption to work. And, if there is an issue created as a
> result of name collisions then the delegation must be withdrawn.
>
> This is separate and independent from the business decision of deciding to
> delegate a proposed TLD string to a particular registry operator, which if
> successful would also require a technical delegation in order for the
> string “to work”.
>
> The technical delegation is part of the due diligence process. There is no
> change in predictability to an applicant as compared to the application
> process as a whole.
>
> Since you mention “applicant” in the context of your question I believe
> you’re asking about business delegation and that is out of scope for this
> working group.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2021, at 14:43, Jothan Frakes wrote:
>
> I am concerned an item on about slides 9&10
>
> "Does not guarantee approval of permanent delegation"
>
> Is this contemplating a scenario where a TLD would get revoked _after_ it
> is delegated due to some NC issue?
>
> It seems there needs to be a horizon of certainty to an applicant as a
> reasonable expectation.
>
>
>
> Jothan Frakes
> Tel: +1.206-355-0230
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:47 AM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
> AAikman at lewisroca.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jim.  I may have missed a meeting, but during today's meeting, will
> you elaborate on the specific differences between "Controlled Interruption"
> and "Enhanced Controlled Interruption" and why the word, "honeypot", has
> disappeared from the slides?
> Thank you,
> Anne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of James
> Galvin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:35 AM
> To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Attached is a PDF of the slides describing the workflow for those who
> don’t have ready access to the Shared Drive.
>
> This is now draft final, which means we will start to progress producing
> our final work product based on this.  We’ll talk more about this today.
>
> Thanks to all!
>
> Jim
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Thomas Barrett
President
EnCirca, Inc
+1.781.942.9975 (office)
400 W. Cummings Park, Suite 1725
Woburn, MA 01801 USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20211208/76e3db25/attachment-0001.html>