<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Look at the Interisle report page 70 and 71. The following TLDs were ranked higher (based on query volume) than mail and all of these TLDs had ICANN name collision reports.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Network (7 reports)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ads (4 reports)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Prod (4 reports)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dev (3 reports)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Office (1 report)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Site (1 report)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our case study shows .Mail is not completely dotless queries (54% are single labels – of course Qname Min could be increasing that amount).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss@icann.org><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"rubensk@nic.br" <rubensk@nic.br><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:54 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: An Approach to Measuring Name Collisions Using Online Advertisement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">In my opinion, the problem we are solving is that the risk assessment used in the 2012 round was not systematic. Perhaps the best evidence of this is that strings which arguably carry more collision
risk than .mail were delegated and .mail was not. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which strings do you believe had more collision risk than .mail and were delegated ? .mail was unique due to dotless collisions that I don't saw happening at any other 2012 applied string, so I don't see which strings it could be compared
to, since all others were collisions of host.TLD or host.something.TLD type, not just "TLD". <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D">What is different now is we are called upon to develop a systematic process for risk assessment. That comes with a “MUST” in the Sub Pro Final Report Recommendations. If you want the Board
to lockup and defer going forward on the next round, your approach makes sense. If you want the next round to move forward, there needs to be consistency between the answers to the questions the Board put to the SSAC and the “MUST” part of the Sub Pro Recommendations.
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which part of the SubPro report do you believe carries a MUST in that direction ? I don't see any, only SHOULDs and COULDs. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rubens<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>