[NCAP-Discuss] Enhanced Controlled Interruption and Predictability

[James Galvin]

Excellent questions, Jeff.  Speaking personally, I think your questions 
fit in that space between purely technical and purely legal. policy, and 
business.

I would say we are obligated to inform the Board with our best advice on 
how to interpret the data showing the existence of name collisions and 
then how to review mitigation and remediation plans.  So we have to say 
something about your questions, beyond just listing them.

I don’t think we’re going to be able to propose a solution that is 
100% predictable though.  I’d be delighted to be educated differently.

Other folks should certainly offer their own ideas for how to answer 
your questions.  Here are some ideas from me for folks to consider.

1. ECI is conducted, data is collected (details still to be defined), 
and data is made available to Applicant and Technical Review Team.

2. Applicant develops either or both a mitigation plan or remediation 
plan.

3. Technical Review Team develops summary of what the collected data 
means, the Applicant plan(s), and a technical indication of the extent 
to which the plan(s) address the aforementioned issues.  Think of this 
as technical due diligence in much the same way that Staff effectuate 
due diligence on the rest of the application.

4. The Board reviews the original application, its due diligence report 
from ICANN staff, the plan(s) from the Applicant, and the independent 
review conducted by the Technical Review Team to decide whether or not 
to delegate the TLD to the Applicant.

What are the benefits of our approach?

Data will be collected about the existence of name collisions for each 
proposed application, each Applicant will have the opportunity to 
address what the data shows, and then the Board will be able to make a 
decision about the Application.  These three steps had an extremely 
limited presence in the 2012 round.  In particular, although most TLDs 
were granted, we have three that are still officially “deferred”, 
since we didn’t have a means to properly evaluate them.

We are developing a proposal to do just that.

Alternate points of view and proposals are most welcome!

Jim



On 22 Feb 2022, at 13:58, Jeff Neuman wrote:

> All,
>
> Purposefully, I am going to ignore all of the legal, policy and 
> business reasons to do (or not do) Enhanced Controlled Interruption.  
> The question I have is whether ECI violates the GNSO Unanimous 
> Consensus Policy that all processed and procedures surrounding the 
> introduction of new gTLDs be predictable.
>
> Lets suppose we do Enhanced Controlled Interruption and there is a 
> whole lot of data collected by some Honeypot operator.  Then what?  
> The Honeypot Operator (HPO) attempts to contact those that have 
> misconfigured servers or whatever.  But what then?  Who makes the 
> decision to allow (or not allow) the delegation of the TLD to the 
> Registry Operator to continue so that it can launch the TLD?  What 
> criteria is used by the decision maker to either allow or not allow 
> the next steps to go forward?  Does this just create more uncertainty 
> by another decision maker inserted into the process to decide if and 
> when the next steps of the launch can proceed?   How does that enhance 
> predictability in the process?
>
> I understand that this is a "technical group", but the Board needs to 
> be told explicitly that we are only recommending what we as the 
> technical group think should happen, but that the policy needs to be 
> developed to determine whether the benefits of this new technical 
> approach are outweighed by the other policy aspects of implementing 
> the next rounds of new TLDs.
>
> I hope that makes sense.
>
> [cid:image001.png at 01D827F4.364CB590]
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Founder & CEO
> JJN Solutions, LLC
> p: +1.202.549.5079
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> http://jjnsolutions.com

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220222/c346efbe/attachment.html>