[NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project

[rubensk at nic.br]

> 
> 
> Sub Pro Recommendation 1 says ICANN MUST develop a Name Collision Risk Assessment methodology prior to the next round.  “Let’s do what we did in 2012” does not describe a methodology and can’t really be effectively adopted by the Board, particularly not when standing GAC and ALAC advice is asking for more.
> 

Anne,

Time and time again you misrepresent what SubPro Rec 1 said. There is nothing there preventing the same framework used in 2012 to be used in future rounds if Org so sees fit.
The only thing that recommendation does not allow is to define the framework afterwards, which was what happened in 2012.

The 2012 framework checks all the boxes of the SubPro recommendations on the topic, so if you prefer new-magic-fancy-framework in lieu of the 2012 one is something you can do, but misrepresenting that the 2012 is a viable option is not.


Rubens


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221108/0a21343f/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/20221108/0a21343f/signature.asc>