[NCAP-Discuss] REMINDER: NCAP Discussion Group | 24 February at 19:00 UTC

Thu Feb 25 19:17:35 UTC 2021

The point I made at the end of the call is that the SSAC is on record taking the following position:

In disagreeing with SubPro on whether Plurals and singulars should not be allowed on a go forward basis based on the concept of user confusion, the SSAC states:
SAC 114:

  1.  “The SSAC stated in SAC103, and reaffirms here, that trying to determine confusability based on the meaning of words rather than the visual similarity of strings is fundamentally misguided. Domain names are not semantically words in any language, notwithstanding the obvious expectation that they will be recognized as such and that it drives applicants’ interest in specific new gTLD strings.” and
  2.  “As pointed out in SAC103, which quoted RFC5894 a string has no context on its own prior to delegation and, while an applicant may have a particular context in mind, there is no guarantee that context will prevail indefinitely in practice. It is also questionable whether a majority of registrants or internet users will apply that same context, which may cause confusion and usability issues. I

SAC 103 $ RFC 5894

  *   “DNS labels and fully-qualified domain names provide mnemonics that assist in identifying and referring to resources on the Internet. … But domain "names" are not, in general, words in any language. The recommendations of the IETF policy on character sets and languages (BCP 18 [RFC2277]) are applicable to situations in which language identification is used to provide language-specific contexts. The DNS is, by contrast, global and international and ultimately has nothing to do with languages. Adding languages (or similar context) to IDNs generally, or to DNS matching in particular, would imply context-dependent matching in DNS, which would be a very significant change to the DNS protocol itself. It would also imply that users would need to identify the language associated with a particular label in order to look that label up. That knowledge is generally not available because many labels are not words in any language and some may be words in more than one.”

Let me first state that I personally disagree with the SSAC and believe that it is naïve and overlooks reality when the SSAC states that domain names are not to be looked at as having meaning.  So I think SAC 103 and SAC 114 on this point is just plain wrong.

However, I see it as hypocritical for the SSAC to be taking the above positions when discussing IDNs, User confusion, string similarity, etc., but now all of sudden take a polar opposite position when it comes to looking at the potential harm of name collisions (pre-delegation) by stating that we should be looking at domain names prior to delegation as words.

There needs to be consistency.  Either we look at domain names as words that have meaning or we don’t.  I personally am on the side of looking at domain names as having meaning when it comes to looking at potential harm, but that also means looking at them for purposes of consumer confusion, IDNs, etc.

I hope that makes more sense.

[cid:image002.png at 01D70B80.F6899490]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:57 PM
To: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org>; Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson at icann.org>
Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] REMINDER: NCAP Discussion Group | 24 February at 19:00 UTC

Dear NCAP Co-Chairs and DG members,
Unfortunately a conflict came up for me with respect to yesterday’s call.  Many thanks for coming up with a set agenda for the Discussion Group meetings and reminding us of the Board questions that need to be answered.

In reviewing the Zoom recording, I had one initial comment on the slide entitled “Overarching Principle of Identifying Harm”. Regarding the “attack vectors” mentioned, I think these need to be listed out individually in separate bullet points and perhaps defined a bit further in each case in order to help establish parameters for measurement of the magnitude of harm, e.g. via specific examples that apply.    Looking forward to a Study Two report, there will need to be sufficient background and definitions for non-technical members of the community to understand these attack vectors in plain language.

  *   Reconnaisance/enumeration
  *   MitM attacks (Man in the Middle attacks may need subgroups)
  *   Internal document leakage
  *   Personal document leakage
  *   Malicious Code Injection
  *   Credential Theft

Regarding the “context of a string” and whether name collision risk is judged pre- or post-delegation, I think that’s a topic that deserves more discussion.  I did not quite understand the point being made by Jeff at the end of the call.

Thank you,
Anne
From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Sheng via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:23 AM
To: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson at icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson at icann.org>>; ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] REMINDER: NCAP Discussion Group | 24 February at 19:00 UTC

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Dear NCAP,

  For your information. Attached please see the SSAC correspondence to the Board Technical Committee on the revised project 2 proposal.

  The document contains the full Revised Proposal that the NCAP discussion group worked on and approved by the SSAC.  Accompanying the Revised Proposal, the SSAC also submits the following additional documents:

  *   Revised Study 2 Outline: The outline describes the basic assumptions, major project elements, resources needed, and logistics of the project.
  *   Revised Study 2 Timeline: The project is expected to start upon Board’s approval and run 18 months.
  *   Revised Study 2 Budget.

These additional documents were developed by the NCAP administrative committee with assistance from project management resources provided by ICANN. They were not shared with the NCAP Discussion Group per the Conflict-of-Interest policy established for the project. They are also redacted from the public version of the correspondence.

Best
Steve

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>" <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson at icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:36 AM
To: "ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>" <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] REMINDER: NCAP Discussion Group | 24 February at 19:00 UTC

Dear all,

As a reminder, the NCAP Discussion Group will meet on 24 February at 19:00 UTC.

Agenda:

  1.  Welcome and roll call
  2.  Update to SOI
  3.  Update on Study 2
  4.  Standing Agenda: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VjuBhPYQ7K59vppKxHSM-hpLnOIov_94-boWprFllMg/edit#slide=id.p
  5.  AOB

Call details:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://icann.zoom.us/j/565453672

Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,565453672# or +19294362866,,565453672#
Webinar ID: 565 453 672
International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/aAAP6aGAx

MEMBER/PANELISTS, you should have received separate email invitation with details on how to join with a unique panelist URL directly from Zoom. This URL is generated for each panelist, so please DO NOT forward or share the link with others. If you have not received your email or have misplaced it, please let me know and I will resend.

________________________________

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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20210225/f2f21984/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20504 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20210225/f2f21984/image002-0001.png>