[NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April

Thu Apr 7 21:08:59 UTC 2022

> Are we saying that there is some number of name collisions that IS 
> acceptable with no notification to the end user?

The DG has to answer that question.  Let me rephrase that question and 
add some additional questions.

In the 2012 Round, controlled interruption was required of all 
Applications.  As we have noted, this is a disruptive option.

In future rounds, I would say a fair question to ask ourselves is, “Is 
it possible that a small number of visible name collisions identified 
during Passive Collision Assessment presents a low enough risk that 
neither notification nor a mitigation or remediation plan is 
required?”

I agree it’s easy to say no, i.e., in all cases, if collisions are 
visible during Passive Collision Assessment then Active Collision 
Assessment should be required.

However, then the next question is which of the Active Collision 
Assessment options should be required?

Under what circumstances, if any, would notification similar (but maybe 
not exactly the same) to what was done via controlled interruption in 
the 2012 Round be sufficient?

Under what circumstances, if any, would Enhanced Controlled Interruption 
as currently being defined be the requirement?

Under what circumstances, if any, would a mitigation or remediation plan 
always be required if Active Collision Assessment is performed?

One of the reasons for considering answering the question with “yes” 
is that the DG has to consider the risk of the data being gamed.  For 
example, once the applications become public, it’s possible that a 
malefactor might consider deliberating causing queries for names in a 
prospective TLD to make it look like there are name collisions.  We have 
not yet talked about this scenario but it is a concern we have to 
address.  One way it might be addressed is that we could determine 
during Passive Collision Assessment that the visible collisions are of 
little consequence.  Of course, determining this is problematic in its 
own right, so this is just an example for consideration.

Jim

On 7 Apr 2022, at 16:24, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Oops – grammar faux pas.  Are we saying that there is some number of 
> name collisions that IS acceptable with no notification to the end 
> user?
>
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>
> Of Counsel
>
>
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
> [cid:image003.png at 01D84A82.D3D07E90]
>
>
>
> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:23 PM
> To: 'James Galvin' <galvin at elistx.com>; rubensk at nic.br
> Cc: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [NCAP-Discuss] agenda topic for 6 April
>
> 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.D3D07E90]
>
>
>
> From: NCAP-Discuss 
> <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> 
> On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 8:11 AM
> To: rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: NCAP Discussion Group 
> <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto: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<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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220407/221ed8bb/attachment-0001.html>