[NCAP-Discuss] NCAP DG agenda: 16 February 2022

Mon Feb 21 19:56:49 UTC 2022

Anne,

Great notes in your support for your question.  I believe we should 
consider on our perspective on how NCAP does or does not address those 
questions.

With respect your specific question about the bullet point on the slide, 
I can tell you what I had in mind at the time, which has evolved a bit 
with your question.

Originally, I was imagining there would be a well-defined step in the 
Application Process (which is defined by the Applicant Guidebook - hence 
the bullet) for name collision assessment.  Currently, we’re imagining 
the overall name collision assessment process as several sub-steps, 
which in my early model would have all been inserted at some specific 
point in time determined by the SubPro process.  That’s how it 
started.

Reading your expansion of why you were asking the question convinces me 
we should consider if NCAP is a single step in the application process, 
or if the steps as we are developing them could be separated into 
different places in the application process.  I’m not yet convinced we 
have to say anything about this, but I do think it’s an important 
question to discuss so we can confirm if there is something to say or 
not.

Jim

On 15 Feb 2022, at 18:14, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Many thanks, Jennifer.  And thanks to Jim and Matt for all your hard 
> work on this.  Question to the Co-Chairs re the Workflow:
>
> With respect to the Workflow Document, and as a member of the (now 
> inactive) Sub Pro Working Group, I am wondering about the reference to 
> Sub Pro in the last portion of the slide highlighted below:
>
> 2. Application submission
> ● Technical package with name collision analysis must be included
> ○ Only if name collisions present?
> ○ Draft mitigation plan?
> ○ Draft remediation plan?
> ○ Trending data?
> ● Subsequent procedures and applicant guidebook process drives at 
> this point
> ○ Out of scope for discussion group
> 8
>
> The reason for my question is that the Sub Pro Final Report says
>
>
> 1.       ICANN should develop a DO NOT APPLY list based on 
> unacceptable name collision risk.  (The NCAP DG appears to have a 
> workflow process designed to measure the risk but no process for 
> applying a particular standard that would undergird such a DO NOT 
> APPLY list. Arguably the SSAC itself is best positioned to do this.)  
> It seems to me that this is a decision that the Board itself cannot 
> make without advice from the SSAC and a recommendation from the 
> Board’s Technical Committee.
>
>
>
> 2.       The Sub Pro Final Report says that If NCAP creates a new Name 
> Collision Framework that is ultimately adopted by the Board, then that 
> will apply during the next round.  However, the Sub Pro Final Report 
> also says that if no new Name Collision Framework is adopted by the 
> Board pursuant to an NCAP (and presumably an SSAC) recommendation, 
> then the Board should apply the old 2012 round version of 90-day 
> Controlled Interruption.  As I understand it, the initial Controlled 
> Interruption test would only be the first step in the Workflow 
> analysis.   Sub Pro IRT cannot develop additional processes and 
> standards to determine whether or not to take the analysis to the next 
> step, i.e. Enhanced Controlled Interruption.   That would definitely 
> be beyond the scope of a Sub Pro IRT.  In fact, I think the 
> Operational Design Phase (ODP) Document notes this Name Collision area 
> as an issue that must be resolved.  (Others are likely more familiar 
> than I with the ODP work plan for the next round.)
>
> So it seems to me that either the DG or the SSAC will need to work on 
> the following:
>
> A.      A measure of Impact (volume and diversity) that merits a DO 
> NOT APPLY rating and saves everyone time and money before the heavy 
> administrative process kicks in.
>
> B.      A standard of Impact (volume and diversity) that applies at 
> the point of Application Submitted and after the initial Controlled 
> Interruption Assessment.  These standards would be used to judge 
> whether or not to move on to Enhanced Controlled Interruption.
>
> In the Workflow, the decision to move to Enhanced Controlled 
> Interruption in the Workflow appears to be handled at the ICANN Org 
> Technical Review Team level, but how will that Team know what standard 
> to apply to jump to the next level of “Enhanced Controlled 
> Interruption” if the SSAC does not make a recommendation in this 
> regard?  And indeed, even if some standard is developed for that 
> purpose, what is the standard that will apply at the next step after 
> Enhanced Controlled Interruption is conducted?  Will an ICANN 
> Technical Review Team be making a specific recommendation to the Board 
> on a case-by-case basis?  Will that recommendation go first to the 
> Board’s Technical committee that will then make a recommendation to 
> the Board?
>
> It Looks as though we, as a Discussion Group, are developing a great 
> Workflow process, but that it will be almost impossible to apply 
> without real guidelines/standards by which to judge the Impact (volume 
> and diversity).  So far, we don’t have an actual new  “Name 
> Collision Framework”.   The Subsequent Procedures Final Report 
> requires deference to a new NCAP Name Collision Framework, but if a 
> more specific Framework is not adopted by the Board, the Sub Pro Final 
> Report yields a recommendation to adopt the same 90-day Controlled 
> Interruption procedure that applied in the 2012 round.   (If that 
> occurs, all our work as a DG is for naught.)
>
> It’s very difficult for me to see how the Board can adopt the new 
> Workflow as a Name Collision Framework to apply to the next round 
> without specific standards being recommended for analysis of Impact 
> for each phase of the Workflow.  Perhaps those standards are best 
> developed at the level of SSAC, but if that is the case, I think we 
> should acknowledge that now within the DG.  SSAC is much better suited 
> to establish standards for Impact that should be applied to each step 
> of the Workflow Process.  It seems to me that only by the development 
> of such standards will the Board be in a position to adopt a new Name 
> Collision Framework for the next round.
>
> Looking forward to others’ observations on these points…
> Anne
>
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>
> Of Counsel
>
>
>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>
>
> D. 520.629.4428
>
> [cid:image003.png at 01D82284.79E15E70]
>
>
>
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of 
> Jennifer Bryce
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 3:07 AM
> To: ncap-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] NCAP DG agenda: 16 February 2022
>
> [EXTERNAL]
> ________________________________
> Dear NCAP DG members,
>
> Here is the agenda for the next DG meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 16 
> February @ 19:00 UTC.
>
>
>   1.  Welcome and roll call – Jim/Matt
>   2.  Update from the Technical Investigator – Casey
>   3.  Project status and restatement of summary of action items and 
> decisions made from last meeting (see tracker 
> here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DE5lcOqFujazdw4_x5ii9vcBnsoskAUJnBee_HaVHn8/edit#gid=418882614> 
> ) – Jennifer
>   4.  Continue discussion on Terminology section (Section 1.3) of the 
> Google 
> doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oPmy0MVRcqkjOzh-OvJRMomYc76TYxvQSXjbEG8LV9w/edit#heading=h.msjt9drdk9ji> 
>  (see PDF attached), beginning with legacy controlled interruption vs. 
> enhanced controlled interruption – Heather
>   5.  Consensus of Workflow (see PDF attached) – Jim
>   6.  Summary of action items and decisions made – Jennifer
>   7.  AOB
>
> Best,
> Jennifer
> --
> Jennifer Bryce
> Project Manager, Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO)
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann
> Email: jennifer.bryce at icann.org<mailto:jennifer.bryce at icann.org>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220221/cd144263/attachment-0001.html>