<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ispcp] ISP and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency comments on ICANN's proposal to mitigate name collision risks
- To: comments-name-collision-05aug13@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ispcp] ISP and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency comments on ICANN's proposal to mitigate name collision risks
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:36:24 -0500
- Cc: "ispcp@xxxxxxxxx" <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear ICANN,
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency (ISPCP) respectfully submits the following comments on ICANN's August 5 Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision Risks.
We are available to respond to any questions or comments.
Best regards,
Mike O'Connor -- ISPCP Rapporteur
- - - - -
ISPCP Comment
Whereas: the potential for name collision may be substantial
Whereas: the potential for name collision often arises from well-established policies and practices in private network environments
Whereas: the risk associated with delegating a new TLD label arises from the potentially harmful consequences of name collision, not the collision itself
Whereas: name collision in general may threaten the assumption that an identifier containing a DNS domain name will always point to the same thing
Whereas: the opportunity for X.509 public key certificates to be erroneously accepted as valid is an especially troubling consequence of name collision
Whereas: designation of any applied-for string as “high risk” or “low risk” with respect to delegation as a new gTLD depends on both policy and analysis -- activities which have not yet been completed
Whereas: the analysis to evaluate the nature and impact of name-collision risk has not been completed
Whereas: corporations, ISPs and connectivity providers may bear the brunt of the security and customer-experience issues resulting from adverse (as yet un-analyzed) impacts from name collision
Whereas: those same corporations are in large part not active participants in the ICANN community and are only just becoming aware of these issues
Whereas: these issues, due to their security and customer-experience aspects, fall outside the remit of people who normally participate in the ICANN process, requiring extensive wide-ranging briefings even in corporations that do participate actively in the ICANN process
Therefore, the ISPCP requests the following.
-- that ICANN complete further study of name-collision issues to understand their nature and impact, following the recommendations made in the InterIsle report
-- That the initial public comment period be placed on hold until such a study is completed, or if that is deemed infeasible, at least extended for 60 days to allow a more detailed assessment of the important issues raised
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|