AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assigned Working Group

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

18 March 2022

Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 2 Documents

No Statement

CPWG

Jonathan Zuck

ICANN org Contact(s) jennifer.bryce@icann.org

Hide the information below, please click here 

What We Need Your Input On


The NCAP Discussion Group is seeking input on two draft work products that contribute to the NCAP Study 2 goals to understand how measurements taken at various layers of the DNS hierarchy convey the impact of name collisions, and to understand the impact of name collisions:

  • A Perspective Study of DNS Queries for Non-Existent Top-Level Domains: This study aims to understand the distribution of DNS name collision traffic throughout the DNS hierarchy and provide insights into where and how DNS data can be collected and assessed. The NCAP Discussion Group presents two preliminary key findings with implications for how future assessments of name collision strings should be evaluated:
    • Finding 1: The IP addresses representing the most queries across the root server system (i.e., the "top talkers") are likely to query any given root server in the course of two days, and queries from those IP addresses for non-existent top-level domains (TLDs) are likely to be found with similar prevalence on different root server identities.
    • Finding 2: Name collision traffic observed at the root is not sufficiently representative of traffic received at recursive resolvers to guarantee a complete and or accurate representation of a string’s potential name collision risks and impacts.
  • Case Study of Collision Strings: Case studies of .corp, .home, .mail, .internal, .lan, and .local using DNS query data from A and J root servers. The case studies highlight changes over time of the properties of DNS queries and traffic alterations as a result of DNS evolution. The NCAP Discussion Group makes several observations including that queries for these undelegated names are increasing in volume and diversity, suggesting that challenges relating to impact and mitigation are also increasing.



Proposals For Your Input
A Perspective Study of DNS Queries for Non-Existent Top-Level Domains
Case Study of Collision Strings


Provide Your Input

Background


Name Collision refers to the situation where a name that is defined and used in one namespace may also appear in another. Users and applications intending to use a name in one namespace may actually use it in a different one, and unexpected behavior may result where the intended use of the name is not the same in both namespaces. The circumstances that lead to a name collision could be accidental or malicious.

On 2 November 2017, the ICANN Board passed resolutions (2017.11.02.29 - 2017.11.02.31) requesting the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) to:

  • Conduct a study to present data, analysis and points of view, and provide advice to the Board regarding the risks posed to users and end systems if .CORP, .HOME, .MAIL strings were to be delegated in the root, as well as possible courses of action that might mitigate the identified risks.
  • Conduct a study to present data, analysis and points of view and provide advice to the Board on a range of questions regarding name collisions.

The SSAC responded with a proposal for three consecutive studies intended to address the Board's requests. In April 2019, the NCAP Discussion Group was formed to allow interested members of the ICANN community to participate in the NCAP effort.

The final NCAP Study 1 report, published on 19 June 2020, documented prior work on name collisions and assessed name collision datasets. In response to the findings of Study 1, the NCAP Discussion Group proposed a redesign of the proposed Study 2 to adjust the study goals, and have the NCAP Discussion Group undertake most of the work slated for paid contractors in the original version of the Study 2 proposal. On 3 March 2021, the ICANN Board directed the NCAP Discussion Group to proceed with Study 2 as redesigned.

The documents presented in this Public Comment proceeding contribute to the redesigned NCAP Study 2 goals to:

  • Understand the root cause of most name collisions
  • Understand the impact of name collisions


Next Steps


The NCAP Discussion Group will consider the input received during this Public Comment proceeding as it continues its work and develops the draft NCAP Study 2 report. The draft NCAP Study 2 report will be published for Public Comment.

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

1 Comment

  1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

    Proposal for some text relating to this PC:


    Ever since its Statement "Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision Risks" ( https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/7231 ) of 27 Aug 2013, the ALAC has been supportive of work designed to identify, understand and mitigate risks associated with Name Collisions.

    Such understanding of risks by ICANN has evolved a long way in the past 9 years and the ALAC is pleased to note that a great deal more is now understood and processes are in place to both understand the root cause of most name collisions and understand the impact of name collisions.

    Thanking the authors of the NCAP studies, the ALAC reiterates its full support that this work continues in the future. Its position is unchanged from Aug 2013:

    "In particular, the ALAC wishes to reiterate its previous Advice to the Board that, in pursuing mitigation actions to minimize residual risk, especially for those strings in the “uncalculated risk” category, ICANN must assure that such residual risk is not transferred to third parties such as current registry operators, new gTLD applicants, registrants, consumers and individual end users. In particular, the direct and indirect costs associated with proposed mitigation actions should not have to be borne by registrants, consumers and individual end users. The Board must err on the side of caution and ensuring that the DNS under ICANN's auspices remains highly trusted."