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

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Hi Rubens,
This response is a bit confusing since there is no reference whatsoever in the first “MUST” Recommendation from Sub Pro to the risk assessment mechanism you mention and no one in the NCAP Discussion Group has ever mentioned that risk assessment mechanism being formally adopted by ICANN until now.  It’s not explicit in the language of the existing Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework either.  (There are references to the work done by Interisle and JAS but it’s all “after the fact” stuff. )

Rather than continue to argue about all that, I believe the DG should just agree on the elements of the process described in the “MUST” recommendation and get it codified.  And I don’t know if the prior testing incorporated the two phases of PCA and ACA, which again seem to correlate very nicely with the Sub Pro MUST Recommendation which requires two phases of risk assessment, namely (1) initial evaluation and (2) transition to delegation.  I’m sure both you and Jeff can be very helpful in constructing the risk assessment procedures that need to be codified within NCAP given your vast knowledge of the prior methods.

I don’t think NCAP is only about .corp, .home, and .mail.  It’s about the Board’s questions to the SSAC.

In addition, I don’t recall anything from 2012 that actually advised the applicant that the string is high risk BEFORE the rest of the evaluation process and that is exactly what is called for in the Sub Pro Final Report Implementation Guidance 29.5.  The Applicant gets a risk assessment that allows the Applicant to determine whether it wants to move forward with the rest of the evaluation.  (It’s untrue that Implementation Guidance means “that would be nice, but not necessary”. The Sub Pro Report says we do it unless there is a compelling reason not to do it and PCA as proposed accomplishes this.)

This is all good fodder for discussion at ICANN74 in person.  I defer to the Chairs in terms of how they want to manage that agenda.  Copying Jim and Matt Thomas here.
Thank you,
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel



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

D. 520.629.4428

[cid:image003.png at 01D87CC9.5F819C30]



From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 6:09 AM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: An Approach to Measuring Name Collisions Using Online Advertisement


Anne,

The risk evaluation methodology used in 2012 was already approved then. There are no tweaks necessary, it could be used verbatim. If Board wishes to wait for NCAP that's their choice to make, but nothing in the SubPro report requires so. Much care was taken in that report to allow for either the 2012 methodology or a new one to fit recommendations, in order to avoid a GNSO consultation for not following approved policy if a new NCF is adopted.

The only actions actually depending on NCAP output are the ones regarding .corp, .home and .mail. Next round will live with or without such, and any attempts to make it hostage for those with agendas regarding CHM already failed at the SubPro final report.

Since your questions on Workflow and Passive Collision Assessment were directed to Jeff S, let me just say that most of the times I wait for him to comment so I don't need to. ;-)


Rubens



On 9 Jun 2022, at 18:41, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>> wrote:

Respectfully, the risk evaluation methodology needs to be formally adopted by the Board and “tweaked” as you say or the next round won’t be approved by the Board.  (See ODP Section on awaiting outcome of NCAP work.)
Do you object to the way this is described in the Workflow? Do you object to the description of Passive Collision Assessment?
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 Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 6:48 AM
To: Thomas, Matthew <mthomas at verisign.com<mailto:mthomas at verisign.com>>; rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>; 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

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
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<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Thomas, Matthew via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:13 AM
To: rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br> <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>, ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org> <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
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<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Reply-To: "rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>" <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:54 PM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto: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


________________________________

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.


________________________________

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/20220610/6e7acd94/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220610/6e7acd94/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 212 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220610/6e7acd94/image004-0001.png>