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

[Jeff Schmidt]

On 16 Feb 2022, at 15:48, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>> wrote:

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.

On 16 Feb 2022, at 13:25, Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>> wrote:

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

Litigation is a symptom of parties disagreeing or asserting that they have been harmed. Ditto for the multitude of ICANN accountability mechanisms. While certainly not the only measure of success, I would contend that the lack of litigation or invocation of ICANN accountability mechanisms vis-à-vis collisions in and following the 2012 round is a strong, strong indicator of success that can’t be simply ignored. Contrast with geographic terms, string similarity, and other highly contentious parts of the 2012 round which suggest there is material opportunity for improvement in those areas in future rounds.

Jeff






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220216/6f085854/attachment.html>