Hi Jeff and Cheryl,

 

Have we invited the Co-Chairs of the Name Collision Analysis Project to the WG call on name collisions?  I believe they indicated a willingness to attend.

Thank you,

Anne

 

Dear WG Members,

Study 1 of the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) is linked below for those interested in some light weekend reading:

 

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-1-report-12feb20-en.pdf

 

It contains a “Name Collision Primer” which may be helpful to those not previously involved with Work Track 4 work on this topic.  (Sub Pro work is specifically discussed beginning on page 30 of this report.)

 

Public comment closed March 31.   One goal of the NCAP is to help guide the Board toward a standard for analysis of name collision risk applicable to evaluation in the next round.  This comes about as a result of follow-up work on the ICANN Board resolution pasted below:

Resolved (2017.11.02.30), the Board requests the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee to conduct a study in a thorough and inclusive manner that includes technical experts (such as members of IETF working groups, technical members of the GNSO, and other technologists), to present data, analysis and points of view and provide advice to the Board on a range of questions that include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) a proper definition for name collision and the underlying reasons why strings that manifest name collisions are so heavily used;

(2) the role that negative answers currently returned from queries to the root for these strings play in the experience of the end user, including in the operation of existing end systems;

(3) the harm to existing users that may occur if Collision Strings were to be delegated, including harm due to end systems no longer receiving a negative response and additional potential harm if the delegated registry accidentally or purposely exploited subsequent queries from these end systems, and any other types of harm;

(4) possible courses of action that might mitigate harm;

(5) factors that affect potential success of the courses of actions to mitigate harm;

(6) potential residual risks of delegating Collision Strings even after taking actions to mitigate harm;

(7) suggested criteria for determining whether an undelegated string should be considered a string that manifest name collisions, (i.e.) placed in the category of a Collision String;

(8) suggested criteria for determining whether a Collision String should not be delegated, and suggested criteria for determining how remove an undelegated string from the list of Collision Strings; and

(9) measures to protect against intentional or unintentional creation of situations, such as queries for undelegated strings, which might cause such strings to be placed in a Collision String category, and research into risk of possible negative effects, if any, of creation of such a collision string list.

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com

Because what matters

to you, matters to us.™