Versions Compared

Old Version 18

changes.mady.by.user Hope Shafer

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Charla K. Shambley

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

SAC124 was published on 1 May 2024. All SSAC publications can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/ssac/publications.  SAC124: SSAC Advice on Name Collision Analysis includes the NCAP2 recommendations in the list of parsed Advice.

View file
namesac-124-01-05-2024-en.pdf
height400
View file
namencap-study-2-report-05apr24.pdf
height400

SAC124: SSAC Advice on Name Collision Analysis

includes the NCAP2 recommendations in the list of parsed Advice

Recommendation DescriptionCurrent Phase
Recommendation 1The SSAC recommends that the ICANN Board adopt and implement all the recommendations in NCAP Study Two.

Phase 2 | Understand

Recommendation 2The SSAC urges the ICANN Board to prioritize finding appropriate solutions within the proposed Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework that allow for sufficient data collection and analysis to properly inform mitigation strategies for name collisions.

Phase 2 | Understand

Recommendation 3The SSAC welcomes the engagement from ICANN Org and is committed to offer its expertise throughout the process.

Phase 2 | Understand



View file
namencap-study-2-report-05apr24.pdf
height400

Name Collision Analysis Project Study Two (NCAP2)

RecommendationDescriptionCurrent Phase
Recommendation 1

ICANN should treat name collisions as a risk management problem

Phase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 2

ICANN should adopt a consistent definition for name collision

Phase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 3ICANN should continue its education and outreach efforts to the community on the name-collision topicPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 4.0ICANN should consider the need for mitigation and remediation efforts for high-risk stringsPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 4.1ICANN should submit .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL through the Name Collision Risk Assessment ProcessPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 5ICANN must support the delegation of strings in order to improve the ability to conduct a name collision risk assessmentPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 6ICANN should establish and maintain a longitudinal DNS name collision repository in order to facilitate risk assessments and help identify potential data manipulationPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 7ICANN should establish a dedicated Technical Review Team functionPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 8.0ICANN should replace the existing Name Collision Management Framework with the recommended Name Collision Risk Assessment FrameworkPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 8.1ICANN should not reject a TLD solely based on the volume of name collisionsPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 8.2ICANN should request special attention to strings with high-impact risks during the name collision assessment processPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 8.3ICANN should update its public-facing name collision reporting processPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 9.0ICANN should create a Collision String ListPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 9.1ICANN should support a mechanism that allows applicants to request a string be removed from the Collision String ListPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 10ICANN must develop and document a process for the emergency change related to a temporarily delegated string from the root zone due to collision risk or harmsPhase 2 | Understand
Recommendation 11ICANN should not move ahead with NCAP Study ThreePhase 2 | Understand