[NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow

Mon Dec 20 21:14:22 UTC 2021

Anne,

I’ve been thinking about your question.  I will offer my own 
perspective and would welcome comments from others.

On the one hand, the case study that was done for .corp, .home, .mail, 
lan., .local, and .internal could provide all the information the Board 
needs to make a decision, in part because the Board might choose to make 
its decision based on the 2021 overall process.

On the other hand, you’re right, the Board could choose to exercise 
explicitly the workflow framework we’re proposing and use that to make 
its final decision.

So, whether or not we should recommend a pilot is a good question for 
further discussion.  It’d be great if folks would contribute some 
thoughts here, on the list.

Regardless, please do keep the question in mind and make sure we don’t 
forget to revisit.

Jennifer, would you please capture this question for our agenda?

Thanks,

Jim

On 15 Dec 2021, at 14:41, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Thanks Jim. I probably should have brought this up on the call but is 
> it possible that the DG should be recommending that ICANN test the 
> system of controlled interruption we are endorsing on strings that 
> were previously applied-for in 2012 and not delegated due to Name 
> Collision issues?  I believe that some of those applications have 
> never been withdrawn – e.g. in relation to .corp, .home, and .mail - 
>  and if the framework that evolves from the DG is accepted and moves 
> forward, it would seem that those stings might provide good “test 
> cases” of the types of controlled interruption we are recommending, 
> e.g. a type of “pilot” for the Board to consider.
> Anne
>
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>
> Of Counsel
>
>
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
> [cid:image003.png at 01D7F1B1.1DFA0930]
>
>
>
> From: James Galvin <galvin at elistx.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 11:11 AM
> To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com>
> Cc: Jothan Frakes <jothan at jothan.com>; NCAP Discussion Group 
> <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow
>
> [EXTERNAL]
> ________________________________
>
> Anne,
>
> Speaking personally, while I agree with the sentiment I have to be 
> honest and point out that I don’t think we’ll be able to fully 
> achieve this, in part because we know we won’t be able to have a 
> full picture of name collisions until after controlled interruption. 
> We know this from the Data Sensitivity Analysis.
>
> The applicant will have a partial view of the risk of applying based 
> on their review of the public information that ICANN will publish (and 
> in fact already are). Currently, an applicant will have to make this 
> determination themselves, i.e., there won’t be any advice from ICANN 
> or the Board on this point.
>
> Speaking as a co-Chair, there may very well be some “business 
> issues” to be discussed that will need to find a home, since these 
> will be out of scope for NCAP.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2021, at 16:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne 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<mailto: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<mailto:jothan at jothan.com>>
> Cc: NCAP Discussion Group 
> <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20211220/7966671a/attachment-0001.html>