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

[rubensk at nic.br]

Anne,

Must have is not must develop. It means either develop a new one or use one ICANN already has, like the one used in 2012. And there is nothing in the recommendation to say what/should be the solution, or when passive or active collision assessments fits in the timeline.


The only thing that ICANN can't is do it later than the submission period, which unfortunately was the case in 2012.



Rubens


> On 9 Jun 2022, at 13:04, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Rubens.  I’ll defer to the Co-Chairs to answer the first question re .mail.  Regarding the Sub Pro Recommendation that contains a MUST, please see below exact language:
> 
> Recommendation 29.1: ICANN must (emphasis mine) have ready prior to the opening of the Application Submission Period a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions in the New gTLD evaluation process as well as during the transition to delegation phase.
> 
> With respect to the above requirement, I think Passive Collision Assessment correlates to the “evaluation process” and Active Collision Assessment correlates to the “transition to delegation phase”.
> 
> Anne
> 
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> <image004.png>
> AAikman at lewisroca.com <mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>
> D. 520.629.4428
> <image003.png>
> 
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 5:54 PM
> To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org <mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
> Subject: 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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/20220609/b03c66bb/attachment-0001.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/20220609/b03c66bb/signature-0001.asc>