Changes

Name Collision (view source)

Revision as of 18:13, 5 October 2021

1,446 bytes added , 2 years ago

no edit summary

Line 63: Line 63:

==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 follow-up 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>

−

* Registries would be able to implement a controlled interruption zone, in which would involve "wildcarding" all SLDs (or all SLDs in the block list) to specific IP that would then alert internal networks if there were any name collisions.

+

* Registries would be able to implement a controlled interruption zone, which would involve "wildcarding" all SLDs (or all SLDs in the block list) to specific IP that would then alert internal networks if there were any name collisions.

* ICANN would implement an emergency plan and strategy in case name collisions had a "clear danger to human life".

* ICANN and community should continue to study and analyze data from this issue.

Line 75: Line 75:

==Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework==

−

On July 30, 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved resolutions<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-07-30-en Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee] Retrieved 29 September 2014</ref> for the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework] (PDF, 634 KB) Retrieved 29 September 2014</ref> to continue to manage the occurrence of collisions between new gTLDs and existing private uses of the same strings. As part of implementation, registry operators will be provided with a Name Collision Occurrence Assessment (see Registry Agreement, Specification 6, Section 6), which will address, among other things, procedures to remove second level domains from the block list including measures to protect rights holders.

+

On July 30, 2014, the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approved resolutions<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-07-30-en Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee] Retrieved 29 September 2014</ref> for the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework] (PDF, 634 KB) Retrieved 29 September 2014</ref> to continue to manage the occurrence of collisions between new gTLDs and existing private uses of the same strings. As part of the implementation, registry operators will be provided with a Name Collision Occurrence Assessment (see Registry Agreement, Specification 6, Section 6), which will address, among other things, procedures to remove second level domains from the block list including measures to protect rights holders.

The announcement highlighted two general requirements for registries<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework] (PDF, 634 KB) Retrieved 29 September 2014</ref>:

Line 84: Line 84:

For additional details, refer to the ICANN website, Name Collision Resources & Information at [http://icann.org/namecollision icann.org/namecollision].

−

+

==NCAP==

+

The ICANN Board asked the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to study the impact of name collisions and advise the Board on their effects and possible mitigation. In response, SSAC started the Name Collision Analysis Project with three name collision studies to address the Board's request.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/name-collision-analysis-project-ncap-study-1-13-02-2020 NCAP Study 1 Public Comment]</ref>

+

===Study 1===

+

Study 1 concerns name collisions in the context of TLDs in the DNS (reflected in the root zone overseen by the IANA Function) and any other namespace, whether or not it is intended for use with the DNS or any other protocol.

+

* On November 2, 2017, the ICANN Board requested that SSAC conduct studies to present data, analysis, and points of view on Name Collision.

+

* In December 2017, SSAC began project planning.

+

* In January 2018, the SSAC NCAP Work Party and Admin formed and organized the three studies

+

* In June 2018, the [[ICANN CEO]] relocated the responsibility of the NCAP from SSAC to the [[OCTO]] because it was too big for the SSAC.

+

* In July 2019, the OCTO outsourced the completion of Study 1 to [[Scarfone Cybersecurity]], who released the draft final report entitled [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-1-report-12feb20-en.pdf Managing the Risks of Top-Level Domain Name Collisions] for [[Public Comment]] on February 12, 2020.

==References==

[[Category:Glossary]]

Jessica

Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator

14,932

edits