👍🏼 Justine Chew reacted via Gmail <https://www.google.com/gmail/about/?utm_source=gmail-in-product&utm_medium=e...> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 22:05, James Galvin <galvin@elistx.com> wrote:

Thank you Matthias.

And now that we know from yesterday’s meeting that Topic 29 will be discussed on 20 August at 18:30 UTC, I can confirm I will be there as SSAC’s representative.

I’m happy to answer any questions or have any discussion anyone may have before then.

Jim

On 27 Jul 2025, at 6:04, Matthias M. Hudobnik wrote:

Dear colleagues, see some infos between the lines.

Best, Matthias

__________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik FIP, CIPP/E, CIPT, DPO, CIS LA matthias@hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at @mhudobnik

On 25.07.2025, at 01:39, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:

 Hi Avri,

I understand SAC130 to be SSAC's public comment to the draft AGB public comment proceeding that just closed.

Yes, see here: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/final-proceeding-for-prop... .

NCAP Study 2 was an SSAC output. It doesn't go through the GNSO but the recommendations (except one) was approved by the Board. These then went to org for implementation. Hence the new Name Collision Management Framework was established as it appears in the draft AGB, as discussed by the IRT.

Here the info: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re... .

What I understand from SAC130 is SSAC suggests the that implementation of its NCAP Study 2 is either incomplete or hasn't gone far enough. I trust this position will be discussed when the IRT reconvenes to review public comments and we should once again have Jim Galvin for those IRT calls.

Yes, indeed.

Kind regards, Justine ---------

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025, 05:06 avri doria, <avri@doria.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Was this advice approved by anyone (i.e. GNSO & Board) and designated as part of the SubPro recommendations? Or does it have the nebulous status of most advice? Did the GNSO act on NCAP2 "recommendations?"

As neither the Board nor the SSAC have policy making authority, I am curious.

thanks

avri On 7/24/2025 11:35, Justine Chew via ALAC wrote:

Thanks for this, Matthias. I am hopeful that Jim Galvin will discuss these with the IRT when the IRT reconvenes to review input from the most recent public comment proceeding.

Kind regards, Justine

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 21:28, Matthias M. Hudobnik via ALAC < alac@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

The SSAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on ICANN’s Draft Applicant Guidebook (AGB) for the New gTLD Program: Next Round. Our comments focus on improving *Section 6.7 on Name Collisions*, with an emphasis on risks arising from *collisions between DNS and alternative naming systems* (e.g., blockchain-based systems), as outlined in the Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Report (NCAP2). Summary of Key Recommendations:

1.

*Clarify TRT’s Role in Initial Assessments* AGB §6.7.2 does not clearly state that the *Technical Review Team (TRT)* conducts the initial name collision risk assessment. NCAP2 indicates TRT is responsible from the outset. *Recommendation:* Explicitly assign the initial assessment to the TRT. 2.

*Enable Pre-Delegation Action on High-Risk Strings* Current language suggests high-risk strings are identified only after temporary delegation. NCAP2 supports action based on existing data. *Recommendation:* Allow TRT to recommend withholding delegation if early analysis shows high risk. 3.

*Broaden TRT’s Assessment Scope Beyond DNS Data* Limiting analysis to DNS logs misses collisions from alternative namespaces that resolve via DNS (e.g., users accustomed to *.wallet* from blockchain). ➤ *Recommendation:* Permit use of OSINT, qualitative assessments, and external data sources per NCAP2. 4.

*Allow TRT Flexibility to Evolve Assessment Methods* AGB cites four NCAP2 methods (NI, CI, VI, VIN), but doesn’t state whether TRT may adopt new techniques. *Recommendation:* Affirm TRT’s discretion to evolve methods to address future risks.

These updates will better align the AGB with NCAP2 and ICANN Board guidance, while improving transparency, security, and technical rigor in handling name collisions.

The SSAC appreciates the efforts of the ICANN org and Subsequent Procedures IRT, and we are available for further discussion.

Link: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee... .

Best,

Matthias _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.