6,681
edits
Changes
no edit summary
====[[NTAG]] Response====
====[[NTAG]] Response====
The New gTLD Applicant's Group within ICANN sent a letter responding to the Interisle's report and ICANN recommendations. The NTAG felt that the report overstated the risks of Name Collision, and called for all of the strings that were designated by ICANN as "uncalculated risk" to be moved into the "low risk" category. The NTAG stated that they agreed however, that the .home and .corp strings should remain as "high risk" and further research is required to move forward with those strings.<ref name="NTAG"></ref>
The New gTLD Applicant's Group within ICANN sent a letter responding to the Interisle report and ICANN recommendations. The NTAG felt that the report overstated the risks of Name Collision, and called for all of the strings that were designated by ICANN as "uncalculated risk" to be moved into the "low risk" category. The NTAG stated that they agreed however, that the .home and .corp strings should remain as "high risk" and further research is required to move forward with those strings.<ref name="NTAG"></ref>
===Community Discussions===
===Community Discussions===
The discussions surrounding the Interisle Report and ICANN's response occurred online, in the public comments on the ICANN site, as well as several in-person conferences organized by several community members.
The discussions surrounding the Interisle Report and ICANN's response occurred in the public comments on the ICANN site, as well as in several conferences organized by community members.
[[Artemis Internet]], the applicant for [[.secure]], held a day-long conference in San Francisco in August 2013 to discuss the Names Collision issue. Delegates from [[Google]] and [[Paypal]] were listed as panelists.
[[Artemis Internet]], the applicant for [[.secure]], held a day-long conference in San Francisco in August 2013 to discuss the Names Collision issue. Delegates from [[Google]] and [[Paypal]] were listed as panelists.
New gTLD Applicants also organized a conference on 01 Oct 2013 in Washington, D.C. Titled the TLD Security Forum, the event hosted a number of panelists and speakers, notably [[Steve Crocker]]. The afternoon sessions included some fierce debate as NTAG members clashed with representatives from [[ANA]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14569-crocker-to-speak-at-second-gtld-collisions-summit Crocker to Speak at Second gTLD Collisions Summit, DomainIncite] Retrieved 17 Feb 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.tldsecurity.net/live-stream.html Live Stream, TLD Security Forum] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref> ANA vice president [[Dan Jaffe]] and legal council [[Amy Mushahwar]] presented a session in the afternoon that had many New gTLD applicants, most notably [[Alex Stamos]] of [[Artemis Internet]] and [[Jeff Neuman]] of [[Neustar]], arguing against them in the Q&A portion of the session. The ANA delegates raised concerns that they needed more than a month-long comment period to go over the data from the Interisle report and reach some conclusions as to the risk that Name Collisions might have once New gTLDs are delegated.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14592-angry-gtld-applicants-lay-into-ana-and-verisign-bullshit Angry gTLD Applicants Lay into ANA and Verisign "Bullshit", DomainIncite] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref>
New gTLD Applicants also organized a conference on 01 Oct 2013 in Washington, D.C. Titled the [[TLD Security Forum]], the event hosted a number of panelists and speakers, notably [[Steve Crocker]]. The afternoon sessions included some fierce debate as NTAG members clashed with representatives from [[ANA]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14569-crocker-to-speak-at-second-gtld-collisions-summit Crocker to Speak at Second gTLD Collisions Summit, DomainIncite] Retrieved 17 Feb 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.tldsecurity.net/live-stream.html Live Stream, TLD Security Forum] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref> ANA vice president [[Dan Jaffe]] and legal council [[Amy Mushahwar]] presented a session that had many New gTLD applicants, most notably [[Alex Stamos]] of [[Artemis Internet]] and [[Jeff Neuman]] of [[Neustar]], arguing against them in the Q&A portion of the session. The ANA delegates raised concerns that they needed more than a month-long comment period to go over the data from the Interisle report and reach conclusions as to the risk that Name Collisions might have once New gTLDs are delegated.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14592-angry-gtld-applicants-lay-into-ana-and-verisign-bullshit Angry gTLD Applicants Lay into ANA and Verisign "Bullshit", DomainIncite] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref>
====Public Comment Period====
====Public Comment Period====
As ICANN does with many of their policies and decisions, the Interisle Report and ICANN's proposed solutions were posted on the ICANN website for a period of Public Comment in August-September of 2013. Many community members submitted comments. Overall, discussions revolved around two main points: many applicants submitted comments that criticized the data in the report and/or ICANN's solution plan. However, many members of the community, primarily non-applicants, argued that the comment period was too short and asked ICANN to proceed with caution and allow companies time to go over the data and create their own research.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14334-name-collisions-comments-call-for-more-gtld-delay Name Collisions Comments Call for More gTLD Delay, DomainIncite] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
As with many ICANN policy decisions, the Interisle Report and ICANN's proposed solutions were posted on the ICANN website for a period of Public Comment in August of 2013. Many community members submitted comments. Overall, discussions revolved around two main points: many applicants submitted comments that criticized the data in the report and/or ICANN's solution plan. Other members of the community, primarily non-applicants, argued that the comment period was too short and asked ICANN to proceed with caution and allow companies time to go over the data and create their own research.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14334-name-collisions-comments-call-for-more-gtld-delay Name Collisions Comments Call for More gTLD Delay, DomainIncite] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
===Proposed Solutions===
===Proposed Solutions===
Many solutions to the Name Collision issue were proposed by ICANN, TLD applicants, and the community at large. The initial proposal by ICANN that immediately followed the release of Interisle's report, was to delay the delegation of a portion of the strings that were of uncalculated risk, as explained above.
Many solutions to the Name Collision issue were proposed by ICANN, TLD applicants, and the community at large. The initial proposal was released by ICANN immediately following the release of Interisle's report, and after the public comment period, the final plan was published.
During the same period that the public comment period occurred, a number of new gTLD applicants proposed alternative approaches to "mitigation" of the name collision issue. [[Neustar]] conducted its own analysis of the data in the Interisle report, and suggested a few alternative solutions that included moving all strings except .home, .corp, and [[.mail]] into the "low risk" category and then evaluating the risk immediately instead of mandating a 120-day period after the [[RA]] signing.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130717_neustar_analysis_icann_overstates_risk_of_harmful_domain_collision/%20Neustar%20analysis Neustar Analysis] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref>
[[.CLUB Domain LLC]], the company applying for [[.club]], also proposed a solution of their own. The company contracted Interisle Consulting to do an evaluation of the .club string, to determine the possible name collisions that might occur if the string was delegated. They then proposed, in a letter to ICANN, that the solution for the strings in the "uncalculated risk" category would reserve the top 50 names in each string that see DNS root traffic. The list of these string would come from an individual report much like the one .CLUB Domains commissioned for themselves. Then when .club goes live, the impact of collisions would be greatly reduced. This solution makes it possible to have more time to find a solution to the Name Collision issue while still allowing delegations of new TLDs to continue provided they reserve a certain number of Second Level Domains ([[SLD]]s).<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14501-club-offers-solution-to-name-collision-risks .Club Offers Solution to Name Collision Risk, DomainIncite] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref>
[[.CLUB Domain LLC]], the company applying for [[.club]], also proposed a solution of their own. The company contracted Interisle Consulting to do an evaluation of the .club string, to determine the possible name collisions that might occur if the string was delegated. They then proposed, in a letter to ICANN, a solution for strings in the "uncalculated risk" category in which they would reserve the top 50 names in each string that see DNS root traffic. The list of these string would come from an individual report much like the one .CLUB Domains commissioned for themselves. After reserving these names, the impact of collisions would be greatly reduced once the [[TLD]] was delegated. This porposal makes it possible to have more time to find a solution to the Name Collision issue while still allowing delegations of new TLDs to continue, provided they reserve a certain number of Second Level Domains ([[SLD]]s).<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14501-club-offers-solution-to-name-collision-risks .Club Offers Solution to Name Collision Risk, DomainIncite] Retrieved 18 Feb 2014</ref>
===NGPC Resolution===
===NGPC Resolution===
On 8 October 2013, The [[New gTLD Program Committee]] (NGPC) announced their final solution to the Name Collision issue. The committee met to discuss the public comments received on the initial proposal, and then updated and released a final document titled the "[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan]".
On 8 October 2013, The [[New gTLD Program Committee]] (NGPC) announced their final plan for the Name Collision issue. The committee met to discuss the public comments received on the initial proposal, and then updated and released a final document titled the "[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan]".
The final plan left the [[.home]] and [[.corp]] strings in permanent limbo as "high risk" strings, just as the original plan stated. These string will be not be delegated until ICANN and the community conduct more research and come up with a solution. ICANN believes these strings will cause significant problems if delegated to the [[Root Zone]].
The final plan left the [[.home]] and [[.corp]] strings in permanent limbo as "high risk" strings, just as the original plan stated. These string will not be delegated until ICANN and the community conduct more research and propose a mitigation plan. ICANN believes these strings will cause significant problems if delegated to the [[Root Zone]].
The plan states that ICANN will contract a Collision Occurrence Management Framework that will stipulate assessments and mitigation measures that may need to be taken for certain TLDs. This process is similar to that outlined in the original plan, with applicants waiting to delegate until they receive their assessment report and perform the necessary mitigation measures. However, the new report focused on an "Alternative Path to Delegation" in which New gTLD applicants who are not applying for .home or .corp could proceed to delegation without their assessment report, provided they block all [[Second Level Domain]]s (SLDs) that were found in the "Day in The Life" Internet data for their TLD. The majority of New gTLD applicants ended up choosing this alternative path.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14659-new-gtld-applicants-get-a-way-to-avoid-name-collision-delay New gTLD Applicants Get a Way to Avoid Name Collision Delay, DomainIncite] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
The plan states that ICANN will contract a Collision Occurrence Management Framework that will stipulate assessments and mitigation measures that may need to be taken for certain TLDs. This process is similar to the one outlined in the original plan, with applicants waiting to delegate until they receive their assessment report and perform the necessary mitigation measures. However, the new report focused on an "Alternative Path to Delegation" in which New gTLD applicants who are not applying for .home or .corp and were eligible, could proceed to delegation without their assessment report, provided they block all [[Second Level Domain]]s (SLDs) that were found in the "Day in The Life" Internet data for their TLD. The majority of New gTLD applicants that were eligible ended up choosing this alternative path.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14659-new-gtld-applicants-get-a-way-to-avoid-name-collision-delay New gTLD Applicants Get a Way to Avoid Name Collision Delay, DomainIncite] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
Finally, the plan outlined an outreach campaign to educate systems administrators, software developers, and other engineers about the Name Collision issue and the mitigation measures they could take to reduce risk.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08oct13-en.htm Announcement 08 OCt 2013, ICANN.org] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref><ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2013/10/09/icann-gives-new-tld-applicants-a-faster-path-to-market/ ICANN Gives New gTLD Applicants a Faster Path to Market, DomainNameWire.com] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
Finally, the plan outlined an outreach campaign to educate systems administrators, software developers, and other engineers about the Name Collision issue and the mitigation measures they could take to reduce risk.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08oct13-en.htm Announcement 08 OCt 2013, ICANN.org] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref><ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2013/10/09/icann-gives-new-tld-applicants-a-faster-path-to-market/ ICANN Gives New gTLD Applicants a Faster Path to Market, DomainNameWire.com] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
On 17-18 November 2013, ICANN released the reports for the alternative path to delegation. Besides .home and .corp, all but 25 strings were eligible for this path, and could elect the alternative path. The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path must wait to receive their assessment and mitigation plans from ICANN.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17nov13-en Announcement 17 Nov 2013, ICANN.org] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
====Alternative Path to Delegation====
On 17-18 November 2013, ICANN released the reports for the alternative path to delegation. Apart from .home and .corp, all but 25 strings were eligible for this path, and could choose to elect the alternative path. The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path must wait to receive their assessment and mitigation plans from ICANN.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-17nov13-en Announcement 17 Nov 2013, ICANN.org] Retrieved 19 Feb 2014</ref>
* You can download all of the Alternative Path to Delegation reports (including block lists) [http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/apd-reports-17nov13-en.zip here].
* You can download all of the Alternative Path to Delegation reports (including block lists) [http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/apd-reports-17nov13-en.zip here].