Name Collision: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

===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 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>

* ~~For~~ [[.home]] and [[.corp]], ~~ICANN deemed the two strings~~ "high-risk" because of the widespread use of the terms on internal networks. Currently, ICANN is indefinitely delaying the delegation of these string to the ~~[[Root Zone]]~~.

* ICANN deemed two strings, [[.home]] and [[.corp]], as "high-risk" because of the widespread use of the terms on internal networks. Currently, ICANN is indefinitely delaying the delegation of these string to the root.

* 20% of applications had been deemed an "uncalculated risk" by ICANN ~~initially~~, ~~saying~~ these strings would be delayed 2-3 months in their application process while ~~they conduct~~ more research into whether the string is of "high" or "low" risk.

* 20% of applications had been deemed an "uncalculated risk" by ICANN in the initial plan, stating that these strings would be delayed 2-3 months in their application process while ICANN conducts more research into whether the string is of "high" or "low" risk.

* 80% of applications were deemed "low risk" by ICANN. These strings would face a delay in activating domains until 120 days after contracting with ICANN, but otherwise would not face any long terms delays towards delegation.

Overall, the initial reaction to ~~the publishing of~~ the Interisle report took the form of outrage by many New gTLD applicants, especially since the delays could potentially add on millions of dollars in costs to the applicants on their way to delegating a new gTLD. In the months following the report's publishing, the ICANN community mobilized to create alternative solutions to the Name Collision issue, as well as argue whether or not the issue was serious enough to delay delegation of 100s of gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf ICANN.org] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>

Overall, the initial reaction to the Interisle report took the form of outrage by many New gTLD applicants, especially since the delays could potentially add on millions of dollars in costs to the applicants on their way to delegating a new gTLD. Other groups however, supported ICANN's cautionary measures and urged them to take all steps necessary to mitigate the risk that name collisions brought forth. In the months following the report's publishing, the ICANN community mobilized to create alternative solutions to the Name Collision issue, as well as argue whether or not the issue was serious enough to delay delegation of 100s of gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf ICANN.org] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>

The report and ICANN's proposal for how to deal with the situation were posted on ICANN's website for public comment until September 17, 2013<ref name="NTAG">[http://domainincite.com/14162-ntag-rubbishes-new-gtld-collision-risk-report NTAG Rubbishes New gTLD Collision Risk Report, Domain Incite] Retrieved 17 Feb 2014</ref>

===Reception by New gTLD Applicants===

Reception by New gTLD Applicants to the Interisle Report as well as ICANN's ~~response to the report~~ was varied. Many applicants were angered that the timing of the report was poor, since ICANN was only months away from delegating the first New gTLDs in the program. Others pointed ~~out~~ to the potential of millions of dollars in extra costs because of this delay. A few applicants, most notably [[Verisign]], were more supportive of ICANN's response to the report and felt the delay was warranted in order to make sure the security of the Internet would not be compromised. Many applicants however, felt that the report and ICANN's response was too conservative and that the Name Collision issue ~~was~~ not that ~~serious~~ of a ~~risk.~~<ref name="reactions">[http://domainincite.com/14016-donuts-uniregistry-and-famous-four-respond-to-icanns-new-gtld-security-bombshell Donuts, Uniregistry and Famous Four Respond to ICANN's New gTLD Bombshell, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>

Reception by New gTLD Applicants to the Interisle Report as well as ICANN's proposed plan was varied. Many applicants were angered and cited that the timing of the report was poor, since ICANN was only months away from delegating the first New gTLDs in the program. Others pointed to the potential of millions of dollars in extra costs because of this delay. A few applicants, most notably [[Verisign]], were more supportive of ICANN's response to the report and felt the delay was warranted in order to make sure the security of the Internet would not be compromised. Many applicants however, felt that the report and ICANN's response was too conservative and that the Name Collision issue did not pose a serious risk for the vast majority of new TLDs. Many applicants pointed out that the delegation of many New TLDs in the years before had never caused a <ref name="reactions">[http://domainincite.com/14016-donuts-uniregistry-and-famous-four-respond-to-icanns-new-gtld-security-bombshell Donuts, Uniregistry and Famous Four Respond to ICANN's New gTLD Bombshell, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>

[[Donuts]] initially reacted to the Interisle Report and ICANN's response by saying: "We also think that name collision is an overstated issue. Rather than take the overdone step of halting or delaying these TLDs, if the issue really is such a concern, it would be wiser to focus on the second-level names where a conflict could occur."<ref name="reactions"></ref>

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ===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 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>
-* For [[.home]] and [[.corp]], ICANN deemed the two strings "high-risk" because of the widespread use of the terms on internal networks. Currently, ICANN is indefinitely delaying the delegation of these string to the [[Root Zone]].
+* ICANN deemed two strings, [[.home]] and [[.corp]], as "high-risk" because of the widespread use of the terms on internal networks. Currently, ICANN is indefinitely delaying the delegation of these string to the root.
-* 20% of applications had been deemed an "uncalculated risk" by ICANN initially, saying these strings would be delayed 2-3 months in their application process while they conduct more research into whether the string is of "high" or "low" risk.
+* 20% of applications had been deemed an "uncalculated risk" by ICANN in the initial plan, stating that these strings would be delayed 2-3 months in their application process while ICANN conducts more research into whether the string is of "high" or "low" risk.
 * 80% of applications were deemed "low risk" by ICANN. These strings would face a delay in activating domains until 120 days after contracting with ICANN, but otherwise would not face any long terms delays towards delegation.
-Overall, the initial reaction to the publishing of the Interisle report took the form of outrage by many New gTLD applicants, especially since the delays could potentially add on millions of dollars in costs to the applicants on their way to delegating a new gTLD. In the months following the report's publishing, the ICANN community mobilized to create alternative solutions to the Name Collision issue, as well as argue whether or not the issue was serious enough to delay delegation of 100s of gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf ICANN.org] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>
+Overall, the initial reaction to the Interisle report took the form of outrage by many New gTLD applicants, especially since the delays could potentially add on millions of dollars in costs to the applicants on their way to delegating a new gTLD. Other groups however, supported ICANN's cautionary measures and urged them to take all steps necessary to mitigate the risk that name collisions brought forth. In the months following the report's publishing, the ICANN community mobilized to create alternative solutions to the Name Collision issue, as well as argue whether or not the issue was serious enough to delay delegation of 100s of gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf ICANN.org] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>
 The report and ICANN's proposal for how to deal with the situation were posted on ICANN's website for public comment until September 17, 2013<ref name="NTAG">[http://domainincite.com/14162-ntag-rubbishes-new-gtld-collision-risk-report NTAG Rubbishes New gTLD Collision Risk Report, Domain Incite] Retrieved 17 Feb 2014</ref>
 ===Reception by New gTLD Applicants===
-Reception by New gTLD Applicants to the Interisle Report as well as ICANN's response to the report was varied. Many applicants were angered that the timing of the report was poor, since ICANN was only months away from delegating the first New gTLDs in the program. Others pointed out to the potential of millions of dollars in extra costs because of this delay. A few applicants, most notably [[Verisign]], were more supportive of ICANN's response to the report and felt the delay was warranted in order to make sure the security of the Internet would not be compromised. Many applicants however, felt that the report and ICANN's response was too conservative and that the Name Collision issue was not that serious of a risk.<ref name="reactions">[http://domainincite.com/14016-donuts-uniregistry-and-famous-four-respond-to-icanns-new-gtld-security-bombshell Donuts, Uniregistry and Famous Four Respond to ICANN's New gTLD Bombshell, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>
+Reception by New gTLD Applicants to the Interisle Report as well as ICANN's proposed plan was varied. Many applicants were angered and cited that the timing of the report was poor, since ICANN was only months away from delegating the first New gTLDs in the program. Others pointed to the potential of millions of dollars in extra costs because of this delay. A few applicants, most notably [[Verisign]], were more supportive of ICANN's response to the report and felt the delay was warranted in order to make sure the security of the Internet would not be compromised. Many applicants however, felt that the report and ICANN's response was too conservative and that the Name Collision issue did not pose a serious risk for the vast majority of new TLDs. Many applicants pointed out that the delegation of many New TLDs in the years before had never caused a <ref name="reactions">[http://domainincite.com/14016-donuts-uniregistry-and-famous-four-respond-to-icanns-new-gtld-security-bombshell Donuts, Uniregistry and Famous Four Respond to ICANN's New gTLD Bombshell, DomainIncite] Retrieved 05 Feb 2014</ref>
 [[Donuts]] initially reacted to the Interisle Report and ICANN's response by saying: "We also think that name collision is an overstated issue. Rather than take the overdone step of halting or delaying these TLDs, if the issue really is such a concern, it would be wiser to focus on the second-level names where a conflict could occur."<ref name="reactions"></ref>