<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=Windows-1252">
<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:"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:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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><!--[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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">(1) v6 support is a red herring. Knock it off. Everyone. This is a distraction.<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">(2) I hear you Anne – I’m writing a highly proceduralized version of what happened in 2012 as that seems to be where we’re all talking past one and other. Expect midweek.<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">Thx,<br>
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>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lewisroca.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, November 14, 2022 at 2:57 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>rubensk@nic.br <rubensk@nic.br>, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Rubens,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The written system for a Name Collision Assessment Framework is supposed to be in place for all future rounds and as you know, future rounds are supposed to be ongoing based on the policy adopted in the
Sub Pro Final Report. It's not at all about IPv6 TODAY.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I’ll add that anyone who wants to see .MAIL move forward (as you have advocated many times) won't be happy with a fallback to the 2012 Framework which bans it. In addition, I don't know how many times
I have to say this, but we need a Framework that assesses risk at the point of application and that was not in place in 2012. Implementation Guidance from Sub Pro says we also need for the risk assessment to occur in the “evaluation process” as well as “during
the transition to delegation”. So there are two phases of risk assessment described there. To my non-technical mind, this comports with PCA and ACA. I leave the assessment of the efficacy of those risk assessment systems to the technical folks and the SSAC.
Casey’s report does a lot to clarify that certain risks of a new system are “unknown”. I will point out, however, that I agree with Heather that no aspect of “Public Reception” is technical in nature. That category does not belong in Casey’s chart.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All these offhand references on the list to "non-technical" people and what we "need to understand" are obscuring the need for clarity.
<b>We need a written Name Collision Assessment Framework in place that can be adopted by the Board.</b> And the Community At Large and the GAC need to be able to understand it along with all the rest of us non-technical people. Will you and Jeff please get
your proposed language and charts in place rather than just taking "pot shots" at the current draft? Please be sure to include your proposals for the “DNS Stability Evaluation” and the “name collision risk criteria and a test” as set forth in the Sub Pro
Implementation Guidance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Recommendation 29.1: ICANN
<b>must</b> have ready prior to the opening of the Application</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Submission Period
<b>a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions</b> in the New gTLD</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">evaluation process as well as during the transition to delegation phase</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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Implementation Guidance 29.4</span></b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">: To the extent possible, all applied-for strings</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">should be subject to a
<b>DNS Stability evaluation</b> to determine whether they</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">represent a name collision risk.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Implementation Guidance 29.5</span></b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">:
<b>The ICANN community</b> should develop name</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">collision risk criteria and a test
</span></b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">to provide information to an applicant for any</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">determine if they should move forward with evaluation.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Of Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com">AAikman@lewisroca.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">D. 520.629.4428<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lewisroca.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: NCAP-Discuss <<a href="mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org">ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org</a>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss<br>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:19 PM<br>
To: James Galvin <<a href="mailto:galvin@elistx.com">galvin@elistx.com</a>><br>
Cc: NCAP Discussion Group <<a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org">ncap-discuss@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Current Status of the NCAP Project<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jim.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It doesn't matter if the share of IPv6-preferred hosts grow and even reach near 100%. The issue, or lack thereof, is with IPv6-only hosts. This ratio is abysmally low which is why adding IPv6 brings zero
benefit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">You may not remember, but the organization I work for is also an address resource registry (an NIR). We keep track of the development in IPv6 deployment both number-wise and device-wise, and try fostering
the growth of IPv6 whenever we can. But we are both not seeing IPv6-only hosts and not advocating for IPv6-only hosts. They could exist in the distant future, and I hope my kids will live long enough to see them, possibly at the end of this century.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Rubens<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> On 14 Nov 2022, at 15:48, James Galvin <<a href="mailto:galvin@elistx.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">galvin@elistx.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> I agree with your observation that controlled interruption fails for IPv6-only hosts. I’m not yet ready to concede that dual-stacked or XLAT networks are not similarly impacted as we haven’t looked at
that scenario.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> As far as adding IPv6 support to collision assessment being a zero-sum game, I disagree with that. As I noted below, IPv6 usage may be small and increasing at a very low rate however, as a technical
point, this does not justify dismissing collision assessments on an IPv6 network.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> At a minimum, the DG was tasked to consider how to assess collisions in the future. Since IPv6 is present today and is increasing, however slowly, I think the DG would be remiss if it did not consider
whether or not there was a solution for when IPv6 was in use. Since we have found a solution the DG would be negligent if it did not call it out, on its technical merits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> Jim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> On 13 Nov 2022, at 19:20,
<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">rubensk@nic.br</span></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> On 12 Nov 2022, at 22:53, James Galvin <<a href="mailto:galvin@elistx.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">galvin@elistx.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> A few comments inline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> On 11 Nov 2022, at 10:52, Casey Deccio wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>>> \On Nov 10, 2022, at 4:34 AM, James Galvin <<a href="mailto:galvin@elistx.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">galvin@elistx.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>>> I consider the following things better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>>> 1. Frankly, [lack of IPv6 support] was a serious technical gap in the 2012 Controlled Interruption<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>>> It is a fact that controlled interruption does not support IPv6. While I do agree that IPv6 support is *desirable*, I am interested to know why you feel that this is a "serious technical gap". And
to be clear, I'm not talking about the general advancement of IPv6; I'm talking about the goals of controlled interruption. I have taken time to write categories for technical consideration in the comparison doc, among which are the goals for alerting and
data collection. Also in that doc are descriptions of how controlled interruption and the other proposed techniques measure up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> A goal of controlled interruption is to work on today’s Internet. Today’s Internet includes IPv6. Failing to cover IPv6 increases the risk that controlled interruption will not achieve the goal of
manifesting name collisions. And while the traffic volume of IPv6 may be increasing ever so slowly, whatever that rate is becomes the same rate at which the risk of controlled interruption failing to achieve its goal will also increase.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>>> Thus, on this one key point, both PCA and ACA are vastly superior to controlled interruption.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>> Today's Internet is composed of IPv4-only hosts and IPv4 and IPv6 capable hosts (either thru dual-stacked networks or IPv6 + 464 XLAT networks). Controlled interruption only fails in IPv6-only hosts,
for which there are almost none whatsoever. So this alleged improvement is 0 at this point and in the foreseeable future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>> Rubens<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><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 class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<hr size="0" width="77%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><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.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>