[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: An Approach to Measuring Name Collisions Using Online Advertisement

[rubensk at nic.br]

> 
> 
> In my opinion, the problem we are solving is that the risk assessment used in the 2012 round was not systematic.  Perhaps the best evidence of this is that strings which arguably carry more collision risk than .mail were delegated and .mail was not.

Which strings do you believe had more collision risk than .mail and were delegated ? .mail was unique due to dotless collisions that I don't saw happening at any other 2012 applied string, so I don't see which strings it could be compared to, since all others were collisions of host.TLD or host.something.TLD type, not just "TLD".



> What is different now is we are called upon to develop a systematic process for risk assessment.   That comes with a “MUST” in the Sub Pro Final Report Recommendations.  If you want the Board to lockup and defer going forward on the next round, your approach makes sense.  If you want the next round to move forward, there needs to be consistency between the answers to the  questions the Board put to the SSAC and the “MUST” part of the Sub Pro Recommendations.

Which part of the SubPro report do you believe carries a MUST in that direction ? I don't see any, only SHOULDs and COULDs.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220608/ef004334/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/20220608/ef004334/signature.asc>