<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)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:57286454;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2123883514 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Hi Jeff,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Thanks for the robust discussion in today’s NCAP meeting. I would like to clarify the reasons I keep bringing up the recommendations and implementation guidance in the Sub Pro Final Report:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">The Sub Pro Working Group knew that the NCAP work was afoot and agreed to defer to outcomes from the NCAP process if adopted by the Board. Whether or not the Recommendation that will
come from the SSAC satisfies a “cost/benefit” analysis is ultimately up to the Board.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">There is standing GAC formal public comment on the Sub Pro Final Report in which Name Collisions are specifically called out and even certain Implementation Guidance items are specifically
mentioned to be of importance to the GAC. Every time there is a conflict between GAC Advice and anything coming out of the GNSO, the Board punts it back to the Community. This is what we want to avoid because it just delays launch of the next application
window. This is what I mean when I say that different arms of ICANN need to take into account what is going on elsewhere in the community in order to avoid the increasing “backlog” and “bottleneck” that happens at the Board level because the Board insists
on not making policy. (Put another way, when will we “kids” ever learn that our differences have to be resolved before we get to the Board?) GAC formal comment to the Board on Name Collisions is pasted below for ease of reference. (Anyone who thinks this
is not going to result in GAC Advice is, in my opinion, engaging in wishful thinking.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Name Collisions: Topic 29 in Final Report</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The GAC highlights the importance, also expressed by ALAC in its Advice to the Board, of</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ensuring an effective framework for measuring and tackling name collision in further rounds of</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">new gTLDs, taking into account the work on name collisions carried out so far by the Name</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Collision Analysis Project (NCAP). The GAC draws the ICANN Board’s attention to the SSR2</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">recommendation 17 and supports the proposed setting of a framework to characterize the</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">nature and frequency of name collisions and resulting concerns thereby allowing the</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">appropriate handling of sensitive data and security threats. The ICANN community should</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">develop a clear policy for avoiding and handling new gTLD-related name collisions. The GAC</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">therefore calls upon the Board to take due consideration of the Final report’s implementation</span><br>
<span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">guidelines 29 (and 29.3 and 29.4 in particular).</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">The cost-benefit analysis you mention is worth noting as an aspect that must be weighed by Board, but I think the DG does not know the costs and I think the DG does not yet know the
benefits of any proposed mitigation plans. I am not sure on what basis you have concluded that the cost exceeds the benefit when the risk must be evaluated on a string-by-string basis. (As you have mentioned, there are “Black Swans” out there and we know
that JAS recommended against delegating .corp, .home, and later added .mail. ) There is apparently some data showing that .mail may not be a “Black Swan” but I think you still think it is. As you point out, however, this is the job of a properly constituted
Technical Review Team (TRT) composed of experts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">The Timeline indicates there are “Off-Ramps” that are very important to the process and the cost/benefit analysis you have invoked. For example, Off Ramp #1 is when the Applicant does
its own assessment and may determine that the name collision risk will cause too many problems and is too expensive to mitigate. Supposedly the Applicant can refer to published ICANN lists and will have other tools available to make this determination. The
Study 2 Report needs to state what the known tools are and where to find them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">At OffRamp #2, the TRT identifies “Black Swans” (High Risk Strings) and presents those to the Applicant and to the Board. (I would suggest that in the description of this Off-Ramp,
the Black Swan not be presented to the Board unless and until the Applicant states that it wants to pursue the string rather than withdraw with a refund.) I understood you to be in agreement with this process as it resembles the work that was done by JAS
in the 2012 round and would benefit the Applicant and the Board greatly to know this well before further steps are taken which would involve greater costs, e.g. string contention processes. So the net result is there is a cost benefit to the Applicant to
knowing the collision risk up front. That is more cost- effective than the process that ensued in 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I think your biggest objection comes in at Off Ramp #3 which occurs after Passive Collision Assessment. It’s important to note that one of the Sub Pro Implementation Recommendations
that was emphasized by the GAC involves giving Applicants a decision point related to the risk of name collisions that allows the Applicant the ability to make a decision to proceed or withdraw the application and get a refund. Again, I think the timeline
needs to clarify this in writing and I think OffRamp #3 is another one of those decision points. Again, there is a benefit to the Applicant in knowing whether or not to proceed with an application and in the case of string contention, there is definitely
a cost benefit to the community if some applicants drop out at that point in time because they don’t want to deal with name collision risk mitigation. If only one Applicant remains, there is no longer a need to determine string contention.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">7.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">You believe not all strings should go into Active Collision Assessment, that this is actually a “honeypot” and that there are various reasons not to do that. Jim believes otherwise.
I don’t know the answer but have asked whether there might be certain strings that could pass through Passive Collision Assessment, be found to be lower in risk and proceed directly to a default “notification” process to the end user. In this regard, I refer
the DG to the Board questions on how the end user is potentially impacted/harmed by name collisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">8.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> Jim firmly believes that ACA is required for every string. We know how Jim feels and how you feel but we don’t know how the rest of the DG views this issue or why. It will be important
to discuss this further when we see a revised timeline with Off-Ramps #1 through #4 laid out in text.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">9.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Re Study 3, I don’t know how the Board can proceed to authorize a next round without mitigation/remediation tools being developed. You say because Sub Pro specifies a “default” position
and I say it won’t fly when GAC Advice differs or will differ as shown via the GAC’s formal comment on Name Collisions detailed above. As you know, the ByLaws provide that the Board cannot override GAC Consensus Advice without a 60% vote so that is why items
get thrown back into an EPDP or a GNSO Guidance Process. Like it or not, name collision risk is also a Consumer Trust and Confidence issue and the GAC and the ALAC are particularly concerned about the effects on end users. (The GAC comment references the
ALAC formal comment on the Sub Pro Final Report.) The DG should not take the “ostrich” approach to how this topic is being handled in the rest of the ICANN community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">All of the above is why I think we need a more fully flushed out timeline with labelled options for each Off-Ramp before it is determined where we do and do not have consensus in the DG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#323232">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.0pt;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#323232">Of Counsel</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.0pt;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#323232"><img width="17" height="7" style="width:.1736in;height:.0763in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image004.png@01D8ACCB.4AF999C0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#323232">AAikman@lewisroca.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:.25in;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#323232">D. 520.629.4428</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:.25in;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="160" height="22" style="width:1.6666in;height:.2291in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.png@01D8ACC4.F8F5DEA0" alt="cid:image003.png@01D8ACC4.F8F5DEA0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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 <<a href="mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org">ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 2, 2022 9:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org">ncap-discuss@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Name collision timeline<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<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 <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
<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> </span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ncap-discuss@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><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>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
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.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>