[NCAP-Discuss] Draft Final Proposed Workflow

Tue Dec 21 21:45:27 UTC 2021

Thanks for bringing these points to the discussion group.

As we develop our final work product, we need to consider the intended 
audience(s) and the opportunity to review and perhaps reconsider each 
next step as an application progresses through the steps we are 
proposing in our workflow framework.

Jim

On 21 Dec 2021, at 8:53, Steve Crocker wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I think the comment I made during your presentation at the SSAC 
> monthly
> meeting is related to Anne's question.  The multi-step process 
> develops
> additional information at each step.  After each step, it's natural to
> assess how much is known, and how much more needs to be learned,  And, 
> of
> course, if the situation is clear enough before going through the 
> whole
> process, there's no reason to continue.
>
> The other point I suggested is to provide assessments from multiple
> points of view -- the applicant, ICANN Org, and one or more groups of
> others such as other domain name holders and/or general Internet 
> users.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:10 AM James Galvin <galvin at elistx.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> D. 520.629.4428
>>
>>
>>
>> *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> *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.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20211221/e635aace/attachment-0001.html>