[NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project

Tue Nov 15 16:55:22 UTC 2022

Rubens,
You are incorrect in your assumptions about my having client interests related to .MAIL.   ICANN policy work has been an approved pro bono matter in my firm since the Barcelona meeting.  My interest in Name Collisions began when representing a client with an interest in .MAIL, but has continued for years beyond that specific representation.  It is a general policy interest not fueled by any economic interest whatsoever.

I was merely noting that “fallback to 2012” means banning .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL and you have previously advocated for the release of .MAIL in many public meetings.  Those of you advocating the fallback position haven’t proposed anything concrete in relation to those three strings in response to the Board’s questions to the SSAC.  Nor have you proposed written DNS Stability test criteria to classify any newly-applied for strings as “Black Swans” in the next round.  We are all still waiting…

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

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

D. 520.629.4428

[cid:image002.png at 01D8F8D8.33A2C7C0]

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:50 PM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project

On 14 Nov 2022, at 16:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman at lewisroca.com>> wrote:

Rubens,
The written system for a Name Collision Assessment Framework is supposed to be in place for all future rounds and as you know, future rounds are supposed to be ongoing based on the policy adopted in the Sub Pro Final Report.   It's not at all about IPv6 TODAY.

It's not just today. The current situation of IPv4/IPv6 is going to be there for decades. Try asking Apple, Google, Microsoft, BSD and Linux developers when they plan to remove IPv4 support from the default configuration of the operating systems they maintain now and in the future. They will stare at you in shock.

Is it really a design goal of NCAP to be valid a century from now ? That would be a real challenge.

I’ll add that anyone who wants to see .MAIL move forward (as you have advocated many times) won't be happy with a fallback to the 2012 Framework which bans it.  In addition, I don't know how

I couldn't care less about .MAIL moving forward or not. What I have raised many times is that .MAIL is a different collision string due to the dotless nature of most collisions (which can only be noted comparing root servers and recursive servers, or doing what nowadays is called an active collision assessment), so it could have a different outcome from .CORP and .MAIL by adding data to look into the non-dotless collisions of .MAIL. Note that the additional data can either suggest a path forward for .MAIL or suggest its forever ban from delegation, and I will be comfortable with either, provided the data supports the decision.

The 2012 framework doesn't ban .MAIL or .HOME or .CORP; the 2012 implementation of that framework, by the contractors that in newspeak would be the TRT, decided to ban them when they looked at the available data from the perspective of the framework and their knowledge of computer systems.

It's also the second time in the last few days you write about how you think I think; I suggest leaving that to the subject matter expert on how I think, which happens to be me.

It also might be a good time to mention that you have client(s) with a keen interest on .MAIL, while I don't and I won't.

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/20221115/b11cc560/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221115/b11cc560/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221115/b11cc560/image002-0001.png>