Name Collision: Difference between revisions

Line 18:

===Reception by New gTLD Applicants===

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>

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. Some applicants pointed out that the delegation of many New TLDs in the years before had never caused a major issue in regards to name collisions.<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 18: / Line 18: @@
 ===Reception by New gTLD Applicants===
-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>
+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. Some applicants pointed out that the delegation of many New TLDs in the years before had never caused a major issue in regards to name collisions.<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>