[NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April

Thu Apr 7 20:23:10 UTC 2022

Thanks Rubens and Jim,
In relation to this question about the Framework, to what extent is the answer to that question dependent on the outcome of Study 3 Mitigation?  It sounds as though we are saying there is some number of name collisions that are acceptable with no notification whatsoever to the end user or the client.  I don’t know on what basis the DG would be drawing that conclusion at this stage.
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>

D. 520.629.4428

[cid:image003.png at 01D84A82.9E274FD0]

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:11 AM
To: rubensk at nic.br
Cc: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________

I just wanted to note that what you describe Rubens is what is currently documented in the framework.

Of course, as we continue to develop the detailed text for that model, if the DG would prefer a different framework then that is the direction we will take.

Thanks,

Jim

On 6 Apr 2022, at 15:11, Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss wrote:

What I believe is currently written is that if passive collision assessment says "good to go", not even the legacy controlled interruption would be required for that string.
And if it says "not good to go", then an active collision assessment is performed regardless.

Rubens

On 6 Apr 2022, at 15:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>> 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.

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'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<mailto: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<http://lewisroca.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220407/09ffb846/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220407/09ffb846/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 212 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220407/09ffb846/image004-0001.png>