hi all, here’s a thread to talk about the SSAC advisory on mitigating name collision risk. here are a few questions. same disclaimer — just a starting point for discussion. do remember that my main interest in starting this list is to explore the GNSO implications of the SSAC report. there are probably better places to have a super-technical discussion on this topic. - what’s the current status of the name collisions work in general? - where are we in the process identifying strings to reserve for private name spaces? - what is the current thinking about the type of namespace use is appropriate? - where are we on trial delegation as a mitigation approach, and where are those policy choices going to be made? - same for “un-delegation” — where are we at, where/when should the policy conversation take place? - is there anything that the GNSO, and/or the GNSO Council, should be doing in Singapore to help move this along? - are there any other questions people would like to raise about this report? SAC062: SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-062-en.pdf Recommendation 1: ICANN should work with the wider Internet community, including at least the IAB and the IETF, to identify (1) what strings are appropriate to reserve for private namespace use and (2) what type of private namespace use is appropriate (i.e., at the TLD level only or at any additional lower level). Recommendation 2: ICANN should explicitly consider the following questions regarding trial delegation and clearly articulate what choices have been made and why as part of its decision as to whether or not to delegate any TLD on a trial basis: -- Purpose of the trial: What type of trial is to be conducted? What data are to be collected? -- Operation of the trial: Should ICANN (or a designated agent) operate the trial or should the applicant operate it? -- Emergency Rollback: What are the emergency rollback decision and execution procedures for any delegation in the root, and have the root zone partners exercised these capabilities? -- Termination of the trial: What are the criteria for terminating the trial (both normal and emergency criteria)? What is to be done with the data collected? Who makes the decision on what the next step in the delegation process is? Recommendation 3: ICANN should explicitly consider under what circumstances un-delegation of a TLD is the appropriate mitigation for a security or stability issue. In the case where a TLD has an established namespace, ICANN should clearly identify why the risk and harm of the TLD remaining in the root zone is greater than the risk and harm of removing a viable and in-use namespace from the DNS. Finally, ICANN should work in consultation with the community, in particular the root zone management partners, to create additional processes or update existing processes to accommodate the potential need for rapid reversal of the delegation of a TLD.