[NCAP-Discuss] Report Changes Based on Public Comments

Fri Apr 5 19:47:23 UTC 2024

Thank you to Michael for his yeoman’s work getting us to here.  I have 
given this document yet one more read and I am pleased to be able to 
support it being published.

However, I do have two issues with the final text that I call out here.  
Perhaps our Chairs, if not Michael, could respond and help me to 
understand what I’m missing.

1. I deleted a sentence that I believe simply does not belong.  I 
inserted bookmark at the sentence so folks can jump right there and see 
it: 
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1ailLZ63CG_p71FTQzc8ANJhnRgqR7H10.

In fact, if you scroll from there you’ll see I deleted the same 
sentence from multiple recommendations, in part because they are out of 
context and also because they are not quite accurate.  Once you get to 
Recommendation 5.9.1, you’ll see I added a comment that suggests that 
perhaps rather than deleting this sentence everywhere it can be 
rewritten to suggest that folks look forward to Rec 5.9.1. for details 
on managing the Collision String List.

2. Unless I’ve completely missed some discussion we had, I think the 
last paragraph in Recommendation 10 in Section 5.10 is backwards.  
Here’s a bookmark that takes you precisely to the paragraph: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO8uQf_17DwITy-jQUvPfDR9dcIk7nX_KLjjKQ0akcg/edit#bookmark=id.i7g1134p7tcy.

You’ll see in my comment that what I believe happened is two separate 
responsibilities got conflated inappropriately.  Specifically, it seems 
to me that the TRT expressly has the responsibility and the 
accountability to make sure that an emergency removal from the root zone 
happens if needed.  It might make this decision itself or might be 
called upon to assess a request if it’s an external report.  What the 
TRT does not have is the operational authority or responsibility to 
actual remove the string from the root zone.  That is something that 
only IANA can do.

I do not remember any discussion different than that.  Can somebody 
point me at when this got flipped, or is this just an editorial 
oversight?

Thanks,

Jim

On 3 Apr 2024, at 3:39, Michael Monarrez Puckett wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Below are a summary of the changes made to the report based on last 
> week's
> discussion of adopted changes based on public comments. Most of the 
> changes
> are to make statements less direct using passive voice (rather than 
> stating
> that the TRT should or that ICANN org must). These were the only items
> outstanding from changes to the report related to public comments. I 
> will
> be amending the public comments Annex to account for adopted changes 
> and to
> prepare that document for the final package.
>
> - Removed references to research about IPv6-only hosts being out of 
> scope;
> Replaced with "IPv6 is a risk tradeoff which was thoroughly discussed 
> in
> the JAS report. There is no clear, risk-free approach to 2012-style CI 
> in
> v6 space." in Sec. 3.5.2 on CI
> - Specified that regarding the process for emergency changes to the 
> root
> zone when considering the temporary delegation of strings, there is no
> "publicly documented" process in Finding 4.7
> - Removed references to ICANN org needing to provide sufficient 
> resources
> for implementation quick like a bunny; Made statement more 
> passive/general:
> "sufficient resources would be required for expeditious 
> implementation."
> - Removed all references to future studies being necessary as the DNS
> evolves.
> - Removed references to TRT having responsibility for removing strings
> test-delegated to the root from the root upon their addition to the
> Collision String List; Made statement more passive/general by stating 
> that
> there must be a process for doing so.
> - Removed reference to the TRT recommending time frames for the Name
> Collision Risk Assessment Framework; Made statement more 
> passive/general:
> "time frames...should be distributed to the public as early as 
> possible"
>
> Over the next three days, I will focus on non-material editing and
> additional necessary preparations to finalize all documents for 
> delivery by
> this Friday, April 5. Should I find inconsistencies that require 
> technical
> expertise, I will be sure to reach out to this group for guidance.
> Otherwise, I'm pleased to share that we are on track for delivery by 
> the
> expected date.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Monarrez Puckett
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 2:41 PM Michael Monarrez Puckett <
> monarrez4565 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all!
>>
>> tl;dr -- Action items:
>> - Review Annex: Public Comments Analysis
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QXc6giTfSRsfLtvxJjzrHzFT1aCPuJgALFVPWZUbVtw/edit>
>> - Review edits to draft report
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TO8uQf_17DwITy-jQUvPfDR9dcIk7nX_KLjjKQ0akcg/edit>
>> based on public comments
>> - See organized Final Report folder
>> <https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1ailLZ63CG_p71FTQzc8ANJhnRgqR7H10>
>> in shared drive
>>
>> Thank you Matt Larson and Matt Thomas for your feedback on the public
>> comments Annex document. I've made updates to the responses to public
>> comments and the agreed-upon adoptions of edits to the report. Please 
>> see
>> the Annex and add comments with feedback as you see fit as this 
>> document
>> will be part of the final report package and contain responses on 
>> behalf of
>> the NCAP DG to each public comment.
>>
>> I've updated the report with the edits based on public comments. 
>> These
>> edits I've made in Suggesting mode. Please take the time between now 
>> and
>> next week's meeting to review changes to the report, add comments, or 
>> make
>> changes in Suggesting mode. Note that the changes are only in 
>> relation to
>> the DG's responses to public comments.
>>
>> I've created a folder in the shared drive titled "0 Final Draft," 
>> which
>> contains the edited draft report, the draft Board Questions document, 
>> and
>> the annex of public comments analysis. This folder is intended to 
>> organize
>> the documents that will be part of the final parcel delivered to 
>> SSAC:
>> https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1ailLZ63CG_p71FTQzc8ANJhnRgqR7H10
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please 
>> take
>> the time over the next week to make your voice heard so that we can 
>> wrap up
>> the Final Report in due time.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:01 AM Thomas, Matthew 
>> <mthomas at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for putting this together.  I just reviewed and placed a 
>>> few
>>> comments/suggest in the document.  Overall, I think this is in good 
>>> shape;
>>> however ……
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @ALL-NCAP-DG – Please, please, please take some time to review and
>>> comment/suggest!  We are so close to the finish line.  Let’s get 
>>> this done!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>>> Michael Monarrez Puckett <monarrez4565 at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 19 March 2024 at 01:27
>>> *To: *"ncap-discuss at icann.org" <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
>>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [NCAP-Discuss] Report Changes Based on Public
>>> Comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Caution:* This email originated from outside the organization. Do 
>>> not
>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and 
>>> know
>>> the content is safe.
>>>
>>> Hello team!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here’s a link to the completed Annex of public comments received, 
>>> NCAP
>>> DG responses, and report changes adopted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please review the responses in column 4 (NCAP DG Response) and leave 
>>> a
>>> comment in the document should you have any concerns or suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QXc6giTfSRsfLtvxJjzrHzFT1aCPuJgALFVPWZUbVtw/edit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m currently in the process of editing the report based upon the 
>>> DG’s
>>> responses to public comments. I will share those edits with the 
>>> group as
>>> soon as possible—by tomorrow or Wednesday at the very latest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Having the report edits reviewed and approved (or else modified 
>>> based on
>>> feedback) prior to next week’s meeting would be ideal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> ———
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Focal points for report edits:
>>>
>>> - Operationalization of TRT and implementation of Name Collision 
>>> Risk
>>> Assessment Framework should be expeditious, for which ICANN org 
>>> would need
>>> to provide sufficient resources.
>>>
>>> - TRT should have the responsibility to remove a string from the 
>>> String
>>> Collision List upon finding that the risk of collision has been
>>> appropriately mitigated.
>>>
>>> - All strings should be subject to a typical technical evaluation 
>>> process
>>> without preferential review treatment for any grouping of strings. 
>>> The
>>> implementation of special procedures for certain types of strings 
>>> based
>>> upon policy adoption is out of scope for this report.
>>>
>>> - Further research by the ICANN community will be necessary based on
>>> evolutions in the DNS and name resolution issues.
>>>
>>> - The data collection methods proposed for the TRT are a small 
>>> sampling
>>> of known and tested methods. Other methods may be used, but they 
>>> remain
>>> untested and are out of scope within this report. Ultimately, which 
>>> methods
>>> to use should be critically considered during the operationalization 
>>> of the
>>> TRT.
>>>
>>> - The NCAP DG deliberated on the proposed data collection methods as 
>>> a
>>> sample of possible and available methods based upon careful 
>>> consideration
>>> and balance of data privacy risks and potential benefits.
>>>
>>> - Data that is presently available to the public, which applicants 
>>> could
>>> use to self-assess their applications is constrained.
>>>
>>> - The data to be made publicly available to applicants should be
>>> recommended by the TRT during its implementation based upon critical 
>>> focus
>>> of data sources that would strengthen applications.
>>>
>>> - The TRT should distribute time frames to the public as early as
>>> possible for stages of the Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework 
>>> based
>>> on implementation details.
>>>
>>> - Updated the agreed-upon definition of “name collision” within 
>>> the
>>> report based on the response from ICANN org.
>>>
>>> - The NCAP DG does not find it within its remit to provide specific
>>> guidance on elements of the operationalization of the Technical 
>>> Review Team
>>> and the Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework, including what 
>>> data to
>>> collect, how to assess this data, and how to maintain compliance 
>>> with data
>>> privacy and risk management standards. The intent of not prescribing
>>> implementation details is for ICANN org to have broadly lateral 
>>> oversight.
>>>
>>> - The ICANN org would need to implement a data privacy and 
>>> protection
>>> policy, along with appropriate risk mitigation measures for legal
>>> compliance.
>>>
>>

> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of 
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of 
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman 
> link above to change your membership status or configuration, 
> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling 
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20240405/292ef8ef/attachment-0001.html>