<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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:"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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">This diagram implies that all steps are done for all strings in sequence. My understanding from the team call 2 weeks ago is that if and how the TRT used the arrows in their quiver would be left to their expert
discretion and applied as-needed on a string-by-string basis. This chart over-specifies their work, unnecessarily. And as discussed we all agree that all steps will be unnecessary for all but a very few (or zero) identified Black Swans.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The flow should be:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Application Submitted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Name Collision Analysis by TRT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Fork in the road:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> TRT identifies potential Black Swan: More technical research, offramps, honeypots, *CA, etc<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> (default) passes the check and proceeds<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Additional thoughts:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Contention Sets can be safely ignored by the TRT, unless the identified string is a Black Swan. Then the “who” and compensating controls (applicant’s specific use case) may become an issue. For example, a
theoretical application from Microsoft for .corp should be viewed differently than someone wanting to use .corp as a generic. These will need to be worked on a case-by-case basis as they are highly situation dependent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The TRT should do their work in batch after strings have been released publicly. This will somewhat mitigate risks of gaming and maintain an even field for applicants. The 2012 round contained a “DNS Stability
Review” – which was essentially a check for technical Black Swans. The DNS Stability Review was performed by independent technical experts (in 2012 ICANN contracted with Interisle to perform this function) (AGB 2.2.1.3, p. 62). No reason not to use the same
approach in future rounds and simply augment guidance provided to the contractor for collisions. No need to make this more complicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas, Matthew via NCAP-Discuss<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> ncap-discuss@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NCAP-Discuss] Name collision timeline<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">NCAP DG,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Attached is a draft timeline of the name collision workflow. We think it would be useful for the DG to review this and to discuss some questions that have been identified during writing team sessions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">I would expect us to have conversations around the duration of each of these events in the workflow. Also to discuss where things like contention sets are dealt with. What happens if another
application is filed for the same string while a string is already in the name collision process? What happens if an applicant pulls out while in the middle of this process? What actions are being made/taken and when in the RSS (regarding delegations/removals)?
How does all of this fit in a First Come First Serve model, a batch model, or a round conducted like 2012? Do our recommendations change at all in different models? Do certain models present more risk for gaming/manipulation? And finally – we should examine
in more detail what the “Off-ramps” entail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Talk to you all tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Matt Thomas</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>