[NCAP-Discuss] Reflecting on the 'big picture' and making our outputs helpful to the Community

[rubensk at nic.br]

> On 16 Feb 2022, at 15:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com> wrote:
> 
> Jeff and Rubens,
> Having participated actively in Sub Pro, I am not surprised by the approach you have both taken in your comments,

I believe you are taking Jeff Neumann for Jeff Schimidt and vice-versa. Jeff Schmidt was not a SubPro member, although he was invited and spoke a few times on the topic of name collisions.

> though they do seem to be a bit “late-breaking” in terms of the process the DG has been following. The Workflow document has been around for a long time.

It's still sooner than just coming at public comments, I hope.


> 
> I’ll also note that Sub Pro Recommendations in the Final Report (adopted by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board) state that
> (1)    ICANN should develop a DO NOT APPLY list for names that have too great a risk of potential harm.  (The potential harms were identified in NCAP Study 1).

Note that this implementation guidance, not policy, which is why you mentioned "Should". It is a nice to have, not a policy requirement.

> (2)    Any New Name Collision Framework coming out of the NCAP process and recommended to the Board by SSAC (which is adopted by the Board in time for the next round) should govern.

Not quite. Any new framework eventually adopted by the Board should govern; whether it will be the one from the NCAP process or not, is something yet to be defined by the Board. And considering the many issues that are being pointed in it, the actual chances of it being adopted as it is are slim, frankly.

> Considering the projected time frame for the ODP, there should be ample time for this  process to “dovetail” the development of an AGB.  And the ODP notes that this issue of a possible new Name Collision Framework has to be resolved.

Which is something to be raised in the ODP public comments, since SubPro never established a dependency on NCAP, just a recognition that if it ends up being adopted, it would change the name collisions framework in effect at time of application.

> 
> Reports of name collision issues to ICANN based on the 2012 round and the “lack of litigation” in this realm is not a reliable measure for answering the issues raised by NCAP Study 1 or the Board’s specific questions to the SSAC on this topic.  Those Board questions have been guiding the work of the DG for months and there is also recognition that the DNS is not static.

Considering the incredibly high litigiousness of the US it's at least an indicator I would take into account.

> 
> I don’t think NCAP DG is a forum designed to revisit the policy work already done in Sub Pro and the Recommendations that came out of that process.  And I don’t think the NCAP DG can ignore the specific questions posed by the Board and the results of Study 1 by simply saying – “well, it seems to us it all went just fine in the 2012 round.”

That's not what a null hypothesis is, so I recommend some reading in data science and scientific method on this specific terminology. In simple terms, it's a baseline. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, Newtonian physics was the null hypothesis. This did not prevent him from proving that for some particular conditions (very high speeds and later the presence of very high masses), Newton's laws weren't representative of the reality around us.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220216/11336887/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220216/11336887/signature.asc>