<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body><div style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;"><p dir="auto">Excellent questions, Jeff. Speaking personally, I think your questions fit in that space between purely technical and purely legal. policy, and business.</p>
<p dir="auto">I would say we are obligated to inform the Board with our best advice on how to interpret the data showing the existence of name collisions and then how to review mitigation and remediation plans. So we have to say something about your questions, beyond just listing them.</p>
<p dir="auto">I don’t think we’re going to be able to propose a solution that is 100% predictable though. I’d be delighted to be educated differently.</p>
<p dir="auto">Other folks should certainly offer their own ideas for how to answer your questions. Here are some ideas from me for folks to consider.</p>
<p dir="auto">1. ECI is conducted, data is collected (details still to be defined), and data is made available to Applicant and Technical Review Team.</p>
<p dir="auto">2. Applicant develops either or both a mitigation plan or remediation plan.</p>
<p dir="auto">3. Technical Review Team develops summary of what the collected data means, the Applicant plan(s), and a technical indication of the extent to which the plan(s) address the aforementioned issues. Think of this as technical due diligence in much the same way that Staff effectuate due diligence on the rest of the application.</p>
<p dir="auto">4. The Board reviews the original application, its due diligence report from ICANN staff, the plan(s) from the Applicant, and the independent review conducted by the Technical Review Team to decide whether or not to delegate the TLD to the Applicant.</p>
<p dir="auto">What are the benefits of our approach?</p>
<p dir="auto">Data will be collected about the existence of name collisions for each proposed application, each Applicant will have the opportunity to address what the data shows, and then the Board will be able to make a decision about the Application. These three steps had an extremely limited presence in the 2012 round. In particular, although most TLDs were granted, we have three that are still officially “deferred”, since we didn’t have a means to properly evaluate them.</p>
<p dir="auto">We are developing a proposal to do just that.</p>
<p dir="auto">Alternate points of view and proposals are most welcome!</p>
<p dir="auto">Jim</p>
<br><br><p dir="auto">On 22 Feb 2022, at 13:58, Jeff Neuman wrote:</p>
</div><blockquote class="embedded" style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><div id="C01DDB2A-4A9D-4D94-84BE-80C5C36DFEFA">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;">
<p class="MsoNormal">All,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Purposefully, I am going to ignore all of the legal, policy and business reasons to do (or not do) Enhanced Controlled Interruption. The question I have is whether ECI violates the GNSO Unanimous Consensus Policy that all processed and procedures surrounding the introduction of new gTLDs be predictable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lets suppose we do Enhanced Controlled Interruption and there is a whole lot of data collected by some Honeypot operator. Then what? The Honeypot Operator (HPO) attempts to contact those that have misconfigured servers or whatever. But what then? Who makes the decision to allow (or not allow) the delegation of the TLD to the Registry Operator to continue so that it can launch the TLD? What criteria is used by the decision maker to either allow or not allow the next steps to go forward? Does this just create more uncertainty by another decision maker inserted into the process to decide if and when the next steps of the launch can proceed? How does that enhance predictability in the process?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I understand that this is a “technical group”, but the Board needs to be told explicitly that we are only recommending what we as the technical group think should happen, but that the policy needs to be developed to determine whether the benefits of this new technical approach are outweighed by the other policy aspects of implementing the next rounds of new TLDs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope that makes sense.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="192" valign="bottom" style="width:144.3pt;border:none;border-top:solid #06175F 3.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in"><img width="178" height="81" style="width:1.8489in;height:.8437in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D827F4.364CB590"></span></p>
</td>
<td width="173" valign="bottom" style="width:129.95pt;border:none;border-top:solid #06175F 3.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#06175F">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Founder & CEO</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#06175F">JJN Solutions, LLC</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">p: +1.202.549.5079</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">E:</span> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1155CC">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">http://jjnsolutions.com</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote>
<div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;">
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><p dir="auto">_______________________________________________
<br>
NCAP-Discuss mailing list
<br>
NCAP-Discuss@icann.org
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss" style="color: #777777;">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss</a></p>
<p dir="auto">_______________________________________________
<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" style="color: #777777;">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" style="color: #777777;">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</p>
</blockquote></div>
</div></body>
</html>