[NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April

[James Galvin]

Thanks for your questions Anne.  I’ve included some comments inline.

There is ACTION for other members of the DG in my comments.


On 6 Apr 2022, at 14:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Thank you, Jim.  Unfortunately I have a late-breaking conflict and won't be able to attend the meetings today.  The new slides add a lot of detail which is very helpful.   One aspect of Passive Collision Assessment in the initial stage that does not make sense to me is the notion that this measurement involves action by both the Technical Review Team and the Applicant.  I believe this process should be objectively applied by the Technical Review Team (or an outside contractor) as a neutral standard and supplied to the Applicant for purposes of allowing the Applicant to decide whether it wants to proceed with the string or withdraw.

This is an excellent suggestion Anne.  My starting point in all of this is that the Applicant wants to retain some influence over their application as it proceeds through this assessment process.

If the consensus of the DG is that a “technical review team” should be the only party to do the assessment of what the Passive Collision Assessment shows, and thus solely responsible for whether or not a mitigation or remediation plan is required, certainly that is what we will proposed.

What do others think?


>
> In addition, as previously noted, I would favor a way to make a determination after Passive Collision Assessment as to whether a string may proceed with the only mitigation tool being legacy Controlled Interruption.  I don't know exactly how that standard would be developed but again, the standard needs to be neutral.  One aspect of this is that a process which requires the Board to make a determination on a string-by-string basis does not seem to me to be workable on a practical level.

I agree that we have at least three different options for Active Collision Assessment currently.  Certainly it is an open question for the DG to decide if we only want to recommend one or if we want to allow options and thus would need to explain how to choose between them and why.

On the issue of neutrality, we should probably talk more about this.  Certainly the assessment created by the “technical review team” could be neutral, but frankly I’m not yet certain how other elements of the process can be fully objectively neutral.  We’ll have to keep this question in mind as continue to develop the details of the process and see if we can shape them as neutral.

Jim


>
> I'll try to catch up via the notes and thanks again for your work on the slides.
> Anne
>
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> AAikman at lewisroca.com
> D. 520.629.4428
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lewisroca.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 10:44 AM
> To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
> Folks,
>
> Attached are the slides that I’ll use tomorrow.
>
> The question for the DG to consider is whether this use of terms and steps is becoming more clearly defined and understandable?
>
> This is the proposed direction the writing team is headed.  As we become comfortable and agreeable with additional details of the outline, we’ll keep adding text for review.
>
>
> Reminder - these slides are a distillation of comments and discussion thus far.  Specifically, the DG has been having issues with terminology and thus these slides propose what we hope is a crisp use of terms, which you will find to be different in a couple cases than they have been used to date.
>
> So, review them all the way through to see all the changes in context, and then come tomorrow to hear more context.
>
>
> Questions and discussion are always welcome!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> On 4 Apr 2022, at 13:14, James Galvin wrote:
>
>> The principal agenda topic for discussion on Wednesday, 6 April 2022, will be a revision of the 5 step framework we have been working with for quite some time now.
>>
>> The 5 steps remain the same.  However, as a result of all the great discussion we’ve been having, there are two important revisions from the writing team for the discussion group to consider.
>>
>> 1. We’re revising terminology, hopefully settling on terms that will be both more descriptive and more accurate about each step.
>>
>> 2. We’re more carefully describing the work to be done in Steps 3 and 4.
>>
>> I’m developing slides to cover this, which I hope to distribute by tomorrow.
>>
>> Look forward to more discussion on Wednesday!
>>
>> 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.