[ALAC] Fwd: Upcoming Event to Discuss Name Collisions

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

FYI - please note the follow-up from Verisign on Name Collisions.
Kind regards,

Olivier


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Upcoming Event to Discuss Name Collisions
Date: 	Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:34:54 +0000
From: 	Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
To: 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com) <ocl at gih.com>



Hi Olivier,

 

I hope you're doing well!

 

I wanted to bring this October 29 event to your attention.
http://gtld-collision.eventbrite.com/
<http://gtld-collision.eventbrite.com/>

 

Verisign is working with OTA and others to support this effort to bring
interested parties together to further discuss the name collision issue
in light of ICANN's recent announcement and NGPC vote. Our goal is to
bring together potentially impacted parties and have a constructive
technical and policy dialogue around a relatively new concept --
mitigating name collisions through SLD blocking -- that was just
approved by the NGPC with insufficient public consideration. The event
will take place in Virginia (near Dulles Airport), but the plan is to
enable remote participation. ICANN and new gTLD applicants will of
course be invited to participate.

 

Verisign is continuing to review ICANN's latest plan
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf>
to mitigate the risks and impacts from name collisions and we are
concerned that ICANN may have again missed an opportunity. While the
newest proposal demonstrates that progress was made by ICANN in several
areas, including agreeing to implement SSAC advice, to conduct an
educational outreach program and to conduct a qualitative analysis of
each string prior to delegation, we are concerned by ICANN's "alternate
path to delegation," as described in Section 3.3 of the Collision
Occurrence Management Plan.  It would appear that this "alternate path"
is based solely on query volume indicators from a potentially
insufficient subset of root zone data. If so, it would appear to be a
circumvention of the necessary study that ICANN has otherwise finally
agreed to conduct.

 

The "alternate path" mechanism focuses on the blocking of a list of
second-level domains (SLDs) taken from the DITL data. Such blocking is
however untested in this context and we are reviewing the potential
impacts that such blocking might cause.  At this early point, we believe
it is premature to conclude that this mechanism truly addresses the
risks of and from collisions.  We plan to say more about the "alternate
path" concept once our review is complete, which we expect before the
end of the month.

 

We remain concerned with ICANN's processes for the introduction of this
new proposal. It goes without saying that**ICANN should have posted the
Collision Occurrence Management Plan, especially the newly introduced
concept and methodology in Section 3.3 and the staff analysis of public
comments prior to putting it to the NGPC for a vote.  Had the staff
recommendation only sought authorization to conduct further study and/or
to develop an additional plan that would have been posted for public
review and comment, we would have no argument with the procedures
followed leading to the NGPC vote. Instead, ICANN staff has recommended,
and the NGPC has authorized, a new process that was not previously
subject to scrutiny or public comment and which we believe may actually
circumvent the intent of the remaining NGPC resolutions.

 

I'd welcome your thoughts on this, both personally and if the ALAC has
reviewed and discussed ICANN's plan.  If you're interested in
participating in the event, please let me know.

 

Regards,

Keith