March 2020 - Comments-ncap-study-1-13feb20

Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1<https://community.icann.org/x/NRmJBw>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Comment on Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1
by Bill Jouris March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

ICANN has a large project in progress for the Internationalization of Domain Names. As part of this, we are identifying letters (or other symbols) which are readily confused with, or even totally indistinguishable from, letters in other scripts. For example, the Cyrillic Small Letter O (Unicode 043E) is indistinguishable with the Latin Small Letter O (Unicode 006F). And there are several other scripts which also contain letters which also are simply a circle. Given that ICANN already has established a TLD of .ooo (using the Latin Letter O), there is an obvious possibility of a collision with a TLD from any of those scripts. It is surprising that those kinds of collisions didn't even get a mention. Going forward, they seem likely to be one of our most common cases. Bill Jouris

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1
by Steve DelBianco March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 1. (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ncap-study-1-2020-02-13-en ) The BC appreciates the work of SSAC and of the Study authors, and offers brief comments on just two sections of the Study: Section 4. Evidence of harm from prior experience. The Study explains there is only scant data in evidence of collisions. The BC is concerned that an apparent lack of evidence might lead SSAC and ICANN to become casual or complacent about collision risks in the next round of gTLD expansion. The Study explains the difficulty of getting reliable evidence, so continued mitigation seems prudent. That would be especially true for .home, .corp, and .mail. Section 5. the purpose and scope of upcoming study 2 and Study 3. The author of this Study seems to suggest that data sets and further data studies may not be warranted: “It is not obvious that additional datasets would be needed for Studies 2 and 3. Information on previous and recent leakage of corp, home, and mail should already be captured in the DITL and ORDINAL datasets. A current dataset for corp.com could be valuable for comparing current leakage of the corp domain to 2014-era leakage. Similar datasets for the home and mail counterparts to corp.com (e.g., home.com and mail.com) might also be valuable, although much of the same information might be available through the DITL and ORDINAL datasets. As for identifying causes of name collisions, they have already been established in some cases, usually by individuals researching a particular leaked TLD to find its origin. There is unlikely to be any dataset that would contain root causes; identifying root causes is generally going to require research on a case-by-case basis. Based on previous research and studies, such as [76], it seems quite likely that there is not a single root cause for most name collisions, but rather several types of root causes.” (page 39 of the Study) The BC is also not convinced that we need additional data sets and studies, and defers to SSAC to make that determination. But the BC does support further research on case-by-case basis when collision potential or problem is reported. -- This comment was drafted by Mark Svancarek and Steve DelBianco and was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0