SAC062: Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision

1. Why is the Board addressing the issue?

ICANN org received SAC062: Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk on 7 November 2013. On 21 November 2013 the Board passed a resolution that "directs ICANN's President and CEO to have the advice provided in SAC062 evaluated." On 8 June 2017, ICANN org submitted the requested feasibility analysis, and on 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed ICANN org to implement per the ICANN org's recommendation.

This Board Paper demonstrates ICANN org's completion of work on SAC062's recommendations. As a result, the Board is now directing that the remaining items related to SAC062 being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed, at the recommendation of the Board Technical Committee (BTC).

2. What is the proposal being considered?

The Board is considering a recommendation from the BTC that the ICANN Board direct that the remaining items related to SAC062 being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed.

3. Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The SSAC agreed that ICANN org has fulfilled its role in implementing the Recommendations of this Advisory.

4. What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

None.

5. What significant materials did the Board review?

In determining that the remaining items related to SAC062 being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed, the Board considered the recommendation of the BTC and the rationale from ICANN org demonstrating that work on these remaining items is now complete.

BACKGROUND

Recommendation 1

Recommendation 1 on Special-Use Domain Names recommended that ICANN org should work with the wider Internet community, including at least the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (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).

ICANN org attempted to update RFC 6761 through the IETF process. The Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) Working Group raised awareness on its work in this area by organizing a webinar entitled, "IETF Overview and Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement" held on 23 May 2017. Despite these efforts, this subject was unable to gain momentum in the DNSOP Working Group. OCTO's (Office of the Chief Technical Officer, ICANN org) attempts at working with the wider Internet community failed to achieve consensus on how to move forward with updating Request For Comment (RFC) 6761, despite OCTO's direct involvement.

Recommendation 2 and 3

Recommendation 2 advises that ICANN org 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 org (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 advises that ICANN org 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 org 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 org 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.

Recommendations 2 and 3 were considered by ICANN org while developing the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework and included in said framework. The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGCP) adopted the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework on 20 July 2014 in order "to continue to manage the occurrence of collisions between new gTLDs and existing private uses of the same strings, and directed the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or his designee(s), to take the necessary actions to implement the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework."

6. Are there positive or negative community impacts?

This Board resolution confirms that the Advisory's recommendations were completed by ICANN org and does not assess the impacts of the implementation of the recommendations.

7. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

No fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN, the community, or the public are expected as a result of closing these remaining SAC062 items.

8. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

No security, stability, or resiliency issues relating to the DNS are expected as a result of closing these remaining SAC062 items.

9. Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

Yes. Confirming the completion of the implementation of an Advisory provides an accountability mechanism for ICANN's work, which is in the public interest and within ICANN's mission.

10. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

This action does not require public comment.