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

[Jeff Schmidt]

Anne:

I think the last thing we want as a community is for the Board to come back with “What is your documented compelling reason for not developing the test described in Implementation Guidance 29.5?”

For reference:

Implementation Guidance 29.5: The ICANN community should develop name
collision risk criteria and a test to provide information to an applicant for any
given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can
determine if they should move forward with evaluation.

This group so far has done nothing of the sort and is not on track to deliver against 29.5.

Re: “develop name collision risk criteria” : All NCAP has accomplished in 5 years is regurgitating an inferior subset of the metrics already used a decade ago by Interisle, JAS, Verisign, and others. Even the new, complex, and risky data collection mechanisms being strongly advocated by the Chairs have no “criteria” attached to them – they just spit out data. I can’t recall a single conversation about “criteria,” can you?

Re: “and a test” : NCAP’s “test” as memorialized in the latest “workflow” is to collect a wheelbarrow of data and hand it to the board (and maybe the applicant) for their consideration. With no criteria.

I agree with you – we *MUST* develop the “criteria” mentioned in 29.5. Those are thresholds of acceptable risk I have been imploring we discuss. Reference most recently our thread on “The threshold of harm issue” from April.

I would suggest the 2012 criteria would be a good starting point. People may disagree, and this would be an outstanding and genuinely helpful conversation to have! 😊

Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220611/f5365828/attachment-0001.html>