Em 5 de set de 2019, à(s) 15:03:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:

Dear List, Regarding the message from Rubens and the message from JAS Advisors,

1. There is, as far as I know as a member of the NCAP Discussion Group, at least one response to the RFP on Study 1 for the Name Collision Analysis Project, so there is a dependency to Sub Pro recommendations. (

The assertion that there is such a dependency is only Anne's opinion.

NCAP Recommendations will go directly to the Board as well but Rubens and Jeff are both members of the NCAP Discussion Group. Jeff has stated that his purpose is to coordinate with them.)

2. I note that JAS Advisors says in its email that its Final Report on Name Collisions stands and Rubens has made some points about that. I don’t recall Work Track 4 actually taking the time to review that report in full. A copy is attached.

That report was one of the many materials reviewed by WT4.

3. I have also taken a section from the Final Report and its recommendations that is referred to by JAS in the new email in its discussion of .corp and other high risk strings. It’s clear JAS recommended total reservation of .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL in its Final Report,

I don't agree with that interpretation regarding CHM TLDs, but this is not a topic for SubPro so I'll let JAS state their positions in NCAP discussions.

i.e. that none of these be delegated going forward. And it’s clear from the email that JAS recommends a way of identifying similar high risk strings be developed. I think Work Track 4 referred to this in its tentative recommendations as “developing a DO NOT APPLY” list.

I think the JAS recommendation goes broader then the "DO NOT APPLY" list, but yes, the ideas are very compatible.

The Final Report is very long – but the summary of recommendations appears early on. These are worth your consideration prior to the Monday call.

While there are other materials in the WT4 wiki, this one is indeed a worthy reading. Rubens

Thank you, Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:04 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [NCAP-Discuss] Fwd: [Ext] JAS no-bid on NCAP Study 1

[EXTERNAL] Thanks Rubens for forwarding all of the communication. Please note that Name Collisions is on our agenda most likely next Monday if all goes according to the Work Plan.

Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [NCAP-Discuss] Fwd: [Ext] JAS no-bid on NCAP Study 1

As a follow-up, there is an interesting thread of discussions in the NCAP list regarding this topic after the message I forwarded; it can be followed even by non-subscribers using the list archive: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/2019-September/thread.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/2019-September/thread.html>

Rubens

Em 3 de set de 2019, à(s) 18:18:000, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> escreveu:

This message distributed in the name collisions project list touches 3 discussion topics from WT4 and the full WG: - JAS Advisors believe the NCAP Study 1 provides no actual new content. I agree with their assessment, and already factored that in my opinion that there is no dependency between NCAP and SubPro for the policy part, even though is possible that NCAP studies 2 and 3, if they are ever commissioned, could interrelate in implementation. - JAS Advisors makes a suggestion regarding the next procedures that we can check if it was already factored or not in the report or already mentioned by any other commenter. - JAS Advisors makes a point regarding a topic that is in our charter but hasn't been discussed so far, name collisions in current gTLDs.

Rubens

Início da mensagem encaminhada:

De: Matt Larson <matt.larson@icann.org <mailto:matt.larson@icann.org>> Assunto: [NCAP-Discuss] Fwd: [Ext] JAS no-bid on NCAP Study 1 Data: 3 de setembro de 2019 13:47:32 BRT Para: "ncap-discuss@icann.org <mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org>" <ncap-discuss@icann.org <mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org>>

Dear colleagues,

David Conrad and I thought the email below from Jeff Schmidt (who is known to most of you based on his firm's previous work on name collisions) was worth forwarding to this group, which we are doing with Jeff's permission.

Matt

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt@jasadvisors.com <mailto:jschmidt@jasadvisors.com>> Subject: [Ext] JAS no-bid on NCAP Study 1 Date: August 27, 2019 at 11:25:49 AM EDT To: Roy Arends <roy.arends@icann.org <mailto:roy.arends@icann.org>>, Matt Larson <matt.larson@icann.org <mailto:matt.larson@icann.org>>, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org <mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>>

Hello Team ICANN!

JAS elected not to bid on the NCAP Study 1; thank you for the invitation and please keep us in mind for Study 2 if such a study occurs.

Our primary rationale for not bidding on Study 1 is simply that we don’t believe we have anything useful to add to the discussion given the limited scope of Study 1. We believe that at this point DNS namespace collisions are well understood (albeit by a relatively small technical community) and that any further work product from JAS would largely be a restatement of our October 2015 Final Report. In the three years since our Final Report, our conclusions have been shown to be largely correct and the mitigation strategy we proposed (“Controlled Interruption”) has had the desired effects. Many TLDs have been delegated and used in a variety of fashions at this point and – as we suggested – the few problems that surfaced were isolated and not serious. Our definition of DNS namespace collisions and the causes/etiology as described in Sections 4 and 5 of our report still hold. At the end of the day, we can’t take your money if we don’t believe we have anything useful to add. ;-)

The one glaring failure and our great disappointment is that the IETF has refused to take-up our Recommendation #1 to clearly create an RFC 1918-like protected namespace for local use. Until this happens, DNS namespace collisions will continue to occur; however, increased awareness should reduce the risk of widespread serious future problems (with the “corp-like” exception noted below). Given the lack of clarity of RFC 6762 (including errata), this issue will persist until folks are told unambiguously the *right* way to do this.

We believe the datasets available to research collisions are also fairly well known – the DNS-OARC DITL data, data that may be made available from large recursive operators, and authoritative data acquired by acquiring/hosting known colliding domains (the 30+ such domains JAS owns, Mike O’Connor’s corp.com <http://corp.com/>, etc). While these datasets have been available for years, extremely limited research interest (essentially zero) has been shown in collision-related topics.

JAS remains concerned about the security implications of a small number of “special” domains – like .corp – including the ones that have not yet been discovered. The special nature of the string “corp” was not predictable a-priori and highly esoteric; all future TLD application rounds should contain steps to identify potential corp-like “special” strings requiring exceptional treatment. JAS also remains concerned about the practice of “drop catching” which is essentially the intentional discovery and monetization of DNS namespace collisions and referenced this practice in our Final report and in Recommendation #14. We would very much appreciate the opportunity to assist with these issues at some future point.

Happy to chat further feel free to reach out of course; just wanted to make sure I closed the loop since you invited a bid from us. Please do let whomever you select to perform Study 1 know that we’re happy to chat with them and provide whatever historical information/assistance we can.

Thank you! Jeff

_______________________________________________ NCAP-Discuss mailing list NCAP-Discuss@icann.org <mailto:NCAP-Discuss@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss>

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>

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.