Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Submissions for this Proceeding
Draft NCAP Study 2 Report and Responses to Questions Regarding Name Collisions
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
Please find attached (PDF) the ALAC Statement on Draft NCAP Study 2 Report and Responses to Questions Regarding Name Collisions.
Ratification information is included on the cover page.
Kind Regards,
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
Website: atlarge.icann.org
Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge
Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge
Submission Summary:
The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft NCAP Study 2 Report and Responses.
We appreciate the time and expertise the participants dedicated to developing responses to questions regarding name collisions. We also encourage the Board to take into account ICANN staff’s contribution and analysis of privacy issues. As evidenced by our engagement in community efforts, the RySG has exp...
Submission Summary:
IPC provides comments on the non technical aspects of the NCAP Study 2 report. The comments are intended to encourage more definitive actions including the timing of the collision review in relation to other ICANN reviews and processes, determining whether to leave a string in the root or remove it and to expedite review to in order to avoid costly mitigation in the future. Further, any additional studies should not delay the timing of the ne...
Submission Summary:
The dichotomy suggested in the report between IPv6 and Controlled Interruption is not based on fact-based finding, but on lack of testing. ::1 (meaning ::1/128 as in IPv6 there is no localhost subnet, only a localhost) is a perfectly good solution to add IPv6 support to Controlled Interruption, targeting IPv6-only hosts. I support doing a study with a few key operating systems to confirm its usefulness and lack of side effects before the fina...
Submission Summary:
The BC thanks the NCAP DG for their significant efforts to assess and detail the challenges posed by Name Collision (NC) and possible solutions.
While we agree with most of the assessment, we have some concerns and suggestions regarding the new Risk Assessment Framework. Please see our attached comment.
Submission Summary:
We urge the Discussion Group to attach estimated time frames to the name collision risk assessment workflow outlined in the report to provide some predictability for applicants. We also ask you to consider advising that the risk assessment analysis commence as soon as possible after the publication of the applied-for TLDs, and certainly prior to other TLD assessment procedures such as objections and contention resolution.
Submission Summary:
ICANN org fully supports the importance of a mitigation strategy for name collisions. We have concerns about the implementability of some of the proposed recommendations in NCAP Study 2. Furthermore, ICANN org would like to point out that should the ICANN Board decide to direct ICANN org to implement these recommendations, it is likely to have an impact on the resources needed for the next round (compared with those used in the 2012 round to m...