6,681
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Although the Name Collision issue is not new, a renewed interest in the issue came about in 2013 as [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]] was preparing to delegate hundreds of new domain names to the [[Root Zone]]. The topic was debated fiercely within the ICANN community when a report by [[Interisle Consulting]] was prepared for and released by ICANN.
Although the Name Collision issue is not new, a renewed interest in the issue came about in 2013 as [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]] was preparing to delegate hundreds of new domain names to the [[Root Zone]]. The topic was debated fiercely within the ICANN community when a report by [[Interisle Consulting]] was prepared for and released by ICANN.
==Interisle Consulting Report==
ICANN contracted Interisle Consulting to carry out an investigation into the effects the delegation of 100s of new gTLDs would have on the security of the existing Internet and intranets around the world. The resulting report, which was published on August 6th, 2013 by ICANN, found that there would be many name collisions for new gTLDs that could create potential security risks. ICANN's initial response to this report was to propose a delay to the New gTLD Program, based on the assessed security risk each New gTLD would carry. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/13994-new-gtlds-are-the-new-y2k-corp-and-home-are-doomed-and-everything-else-is-delayed New gTLDs are The New Y2K, .corp and .home are doomed, and Everything Else is Delayed, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>
ICANN contracted Interisle Consulting to carry out an investigation into the effects the delegation of 100s of new gTLDs would have on the security of the existing Internet and intranets around the world. The resulting report, which was published on August 6th, 2013 by ICANN, found that there would be many name collisions for new gTLDs that could create potential security risks. ICANN's initial response to this report was to propose a delay to the New gTLD Program, based on the assessed security risk each New gTLD would carry. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/13994-new-gtlds-are-the-new-y2k-corp-and-home-are-doomed-and-everything-else-is-delayed New gTLDs are The New Y2K, .corp and .home are doomed, and Everything Else is Delayed, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 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>
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===
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>
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==
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.
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.
[[.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>
[[.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==
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]".
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]".
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>
==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>
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>
* The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path were: [[.blog]], [[.box]], [[.business]], [[.casa]], [[.cisco]], [[.comcast]], [[.dev]], [[.family]], [[.free]], [[.google]], [[.iinet]], [[.mail]], [[.network]], [[.office]], [[.orange]], [[.philips]], [[.prod]], [[.sfr]], [[.site]], [[.taobao]], [[.taxi]], [[.web]], [[.work]], [[.world]], and [[.zip]].
* The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path were: [[.blog]], [[.box]], [[.business]], [[.casa]], [[.cisco]], [[.comcast]], [[.dev]], [[.family]], [[.free]], [[.google]], [[.iinet]], [[.mail]], [[.network]], [[.office]], [[.orange]], [[.philips]], [[.prod]], [[.sfr]], [[.site]], [[.taobao]], [[.taxi]], [[.web]], [[.work]], [[.world]], and [[.zip]].
==Risk Mitigation Report by JAS Advisors==
On 26 February 2014, ICANN posted the followup report it commissioned [[JAS Advisors]] to prepare in order to suggest a plan for risk mitigation of the name collision issue. It was posted for public comment for about a month and then will be decided on by the ICANN Board. The report, titled "Mitigating The Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions," makes a number of key recommendations for resolving the name collision issue for most applicants:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm Name Collision, 26 Feb 2014, ICANN.org] Retrieved 27 Feb 2014</ref>
On 26 February 2014, ICANN posted the followup report it commissioned [[JAS Advisors]] to prepare in order to suggest a plan for risk mitigation of the name collision issue. It was posted for public comment for about a month and then will be decided on by the ICANN Board. The report, titled "Mitigating The Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions," makes a number of key recommendations for resolving the name collision issue for most applicants:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm Name Collision, 26 Feb 2014, ICANN.org] Retrieved 27 Feb 2014</ref>