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

[Jeff Schmidt]

Our report, page 12. .mail has special considerations including hardcode in sendmail example configuration files.

Our report, page 2881, .prod was fairly isolated to one operator.

Our report, 2389-2390, .site was isolated and dominated by Interisle Category B queries making it clear it was a special noisy case, not something systemic.

Etc. . .

Again, respectfully, this has all been done.

Jeff




From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Thomas, Matthew via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:13 AM
To: rubensk at nic.br <rubensk at nic.br>, ncap-discuss at icann.org <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: An Approach to Measuring Name Collisions Using Online Advertisement
Look at the Interisle report page 70 and 71.  The following TLDs were ranked higher (based on query volume) than mail and all of these TLDs had ICANN name collision reports.

Network (7 reports)
Ads (4 reports)
Prod (4 reports)
Dev (3 reports)
Office (1 report)
Site (1 report)

Our case study shows .Mail is not completely dotless queries (54% are single labels – of course Qname Min could be increasing that amount).

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Reply-To: "rubensk at nic.br" <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:54 PM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: An Approach to Measuring Name Collisions Using Online Advertisement



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/20220609/fea4cebf/attachment.html>