[NCAP-Discuss] Enhanced Controlled Interruption and Predictability

Wed Feb 23 20:24:58 UTC 2022

Jeff - the policy was already developed in Sub Pro.  As far as I know, it states very clearly that if NCAP develops a new Name Collision Framework that is recommended to the Board and the Board adopts it, that new Name Collision Framework will apply.  It's one of the formal Recommendations in the Sub Pro Final Report and this contingency is noted in the ODP for the next round.

What am I missing as to your comment re policy development?
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>

D. 520.629.4428

[cid:image004.png at 01D828B8.BEDABF50]

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 11:58 AM
To: ncap-discuss at icann.org
Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] Enhanced Controlled Interruption and Predictability

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
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:image007.png at 01D828B8.BEEC4B80]

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

________________________________

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220223/908909a4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220223/908909a4/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 212 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220223/908909a4/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14520 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220223/908909a4/image007-0001.png>