[NCAP-Discuss] Name collision timeline

[Jeff Schmidt]

This diagram implies that all steps are done for all strings in sequence. My understanding from the team call 2 weeks ago is that if and how the TRT used the arrows in their quiver would be left to their expert discretion and applied as-needed on a string-by-string basis. This chart over-specifies their work, unnecessarily. And as discussed we all agree that all steps will be unnecessary for all but a very few (or zero) identified Black Swans.

The flow should be:

Application Submitted
Name Collision Analysis by TRT
Fork in the road:
                TRT identifies potential Black Swan: More technical research, offramps, honeypots, *CA, etc
                (default) passes the check and proceeds

Additional thoughts:

Contention Sets can be safely ignored by the TRT, unless the identified string is a Black Swan. Then the “who” and compensating controls (applicant’s specific use case) may become an issue. For example, a theoretical application from Microsoft for .corp should be viewed differently than someone wanting to use .corp as a generic. These will need to be worked on a case-by-case basis as they are highly situation dependent.

The TRT should do their work in batch after strings have been released publicly. This will somewhat mitigate risks of gaming and maintain an even field for applicants. The 2012 round contained a “DNS Stability Review” – which was essentially a check for technical Black Swans. The DNS Stability Review was performed by independent technical experts (in 2012 ICANN contracted with Interisle to perform this function) (AGB 2.2.1.3, p. 62). No reason not to use the same approach in future rounds and simply augment guidance provided to the contractor for collisions. No need to make this more complicated.

Jeff





From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Thomas, Matthew via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:41 AM
To: ncap-discuss at icann.org
Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] Name collision timeline

NCAP DG,

Attached is a draft timeline of the name collision workflow.  We think it would be useful for the DG to review this and to discuss some questions that have been identified during writing team sessions.

I would expect us to have conversations around the duration of each of these events in the workflow.  Also to discuss where things like contention sets are dealt with.  What happens if another application is filed for the same string while a string is already in the name collision process?  What happens if an applicant pulls out while in the middle of this process?  What actions are being made/taken and when in the RSS (regarding delegations/removals)? How does all of this fit in a First Come First Serve model, a batch model, or a round conducted like 2012? Do our recommendations change at all in different models? Do certain models present more risk for gaming/manipulation? And finally – we should examine in more detail what the “Off-ramps” entail.

Talk to you all tomorrow.

Best,

Matt Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220802/3b2192bd/attachment.html>