[NCSG-PC] [Public Comments] Call for Volunteers for NCSG Comment on Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

hearing no objection, I will submit the comment by end of the day.

Best,

Rafik

Le mer. 1 avr. 2020 à 22:41, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> reminder to review the draft comment (short one). please raise concern if
> you have any,
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le mar. 31 mars 2020 à 20:25, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> reminder to review the draft comment.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>> Le lun. 30 mars 2020 à 22:49, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We have this draft comment for your review.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org>
>>> Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 03:51
>>> Subject: Re: [Public Comments] Call for Volunteers for NCSG Comment on
>>> Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1
>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Due to the approaching deadline, Rafik and I worked to propose a draft
>>> response
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_27iFmqrAnVJ7Aq1jedo9CmBlb6MbBFq-roaMpb-xGU/edit> to
>>> this Public comment and would like to gather your inputs for the draft
>>> report
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-1-report-12feb20-en.pdf> published
>>> by the contractor (Karen Scarfone, Scarfone Cybersecurity) for Study 1 for
>>> the Name Collision Analysis Project. Please note that there are only 2 days
>>> (even less) lefts for the PC to be closed. The report is very brief, one
>>> page long.
>>>
>>> What is needed from you:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Do you think that this study (Study 1 of  3) was broad enough to
>>>    include all prior works related to the Name Collisions related issues?
>>>    2. According to you,  is the approach used efficient?
>>>
>>>
>>> For a quick background on the topic:
>>>
>>> 1) In October 2018 the BTC asked for OCTO’s assessment of the NCAP
>>> proposal, which OCTO provided on 27 November 2018. Subsequently, OCTO and
>>> SSAC had discussions that provided additional information and further
>>> clarification to OCTO on the details of the proposal. OCTO provided its
>>> assessment on all three studies that comprise the NCAP proposal. In that
>>> assessment, OCTO expressed concerns about the scope of Study 1, that the
>>> goals of Studies 2 and 3 might not be achievable, and that the overall
>>> project might not ultimately provide the necessary information to the Board
>>> to make decisions on whether or not a TLD is a “collision string” and can
>>> be safely delegated. OCTO also noted the high cost and long duration of the
>>> overall project. (Source)
>>>
>>> 2) Study 1 (subjected to this call for Public Comment) is focused on
>>> performing a survey of all the research that has been undertaken in the
>>> area of name collision since 2014 and evaluating if this work could meet,
>>> or assist in meeting, the objectives set out in the Board resolutions. The
>>> study includes a decision on if the project should proceed based on the
>>> results of the survey and the availability of data necessary to perform
>>> Studies 2 and 3. Study 1 also calls for creating a data repository and
>>> associated policies and processes to store data necessary for use in
>>> subsequent studies. (Source)
>>>
>>> 3) In July 2019, ICANN publishes a call for applications to select a
>>> contractor to conduct Study 1. Details can be found here
>>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-07-09-en>.
>>> 4)  The RFC for proposal that outline the requirements that the
>>> contractor  in 3) should meet is available here
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-ncap-study-1-09jul19-en.pdf>
>>> .
>>>
>>> 5) Our draft response is available through this link
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_27iFmqrAnVJ7Aq1jedo9CmBlb6MbBFq-roaMpb-xGU/edit>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> That is all….by now ;)
>>>
>>> @__f_f__
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> ____________________________________
>>>
>>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
>>> GNSO Councillor
>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Feb 2020, at 02:52, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> ICANN just published a consultation on Name Collision Analysis Project
>>> (NCAP) Study 1. You can find here all the details here
>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ncap-study-1-2020-02-13-en . We
>>> preciously commented on NCAP plan and so this is an opportunity to comment
>>> on the study and follow-up.
>>>
>>> I created this google doc to be used during the drafting and accessible
>>> to all in order to kick off the discussion and comments:
>>>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_27iFmqrAnVJ7Aq1jedo9CmBlb6MbBFq-roaMpb-xGU/edit
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_27iFmqrAnVJ7Aq1jedo9CmBlb6MbBFq-roaMpb-xGU/edit>
>>>
>>> Please let me offline if you want to volunteer to participate in
>>> drafting the NCSG comment and join the drafting team. For those interested
>>> by the policy and technology discussion, this is a good topic to review and
>>> work on drafting a comment.
>>>
>>> You can find previous public comments submitted by NCSG in this wiki
>>> page
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2020 and
>>> listing those who drafted them.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik Dammak
>>>
>>> NCSG Policy Committee Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20200402/edd29ada/attachment.htm>