SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace (R-2)

Date IssuedDocumentReference IDCurrent Phase

  

SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace (R-2)SAC090

CLOSED





  1. Phase 1 Receive
  2. Phase 2 Understand
  3. Phase 3 Evaluate
  4. Phase 4 Implement
  5. Phase 5 Close
  6. Closed


Description:

The SSAC recommends that the scope of the work presented in Recommendation 1 include at least the following issues and questions:

1) In the Applicant Guidebook for the most recent round of new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) applications, ICANN cited or created several lists of strings that could not be applied-for new gTLD names, such as the “reserved names” listed in Section 2.2.1.2.1, the “ineligible strings” listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes proscribed by reference in Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the geographic names proscribed by reference in Section 2.2.1.4. More recently, the IETF has placed a small number of potential gTLD strings into a Special-Use Domain Names Registry. As described in RFC 6761, a string that is placed into this registry is expected to be processed in a defined “special” way that is different from the normal process of DNS resolution. Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of the names on these lists? If so:

     i) How should ICANN respond to changes that other parties may make to lists that are recognized by ICANN but are outside the scope of ICANN’s direct influence?
     ii) How should ICANN respond to a change in a recognized list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) The IETF is an example of a group outside of ICANN that maintains a list of “special use” names. What should ICANN’s response be to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing for their list of special names?

3) Some names that are not on any formal list are regularly presented to the global DNS for resolution as TLDs. These so-called “private use” names are independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a defined private context. As such they are harmlessly discarded by the global DNS—until they collide with a delegated use of the same name as a new ICANN-recognized gTLD. Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of “private use” names? If so:

     i) How should ICANN deal with private use names such as .corp, .home, and .mail that already are known to collide on a large scale with formal applications for the same names as new ICANN-recognized gTLDs?
     ii) How should ICANN discover and respond to future collisions between private use names and proposed new ICANN-recognized gTLDs?


STATUS UPDATES

DatePhaseTypeStatus Updates

 

ClosedPhase ChangeThis Advice Item is now Closed

 

Phase 5AP FeedbackICANN received confirmation from the SSAC that the items included in the letter (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/olive-to-rasmussen-22jun23-en.pdf) from David Olive can be formally closed.

 

Phase 5Phase UpdateA letter (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/olive-to-rasmussen-22jun23-en.pdf) was sent from David Olive to Rod Rasmussen regarding the status of the Advice Item.

 

Phase 5Phase UpdateOn 23 June 2018, the Board accepted (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en#1.g) this advice and asked the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work. As a result, implementation of this Advice is considered complete.

 

Phase 5Phase UpdateOn 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en#1.g).

 

Phase 5Phase ChangeNow in Phase 5: Close

 

Phase 3Board UpdateResolved (2018.06.23.10), the Board adopts the scorecard titled "ICANN Board Action for SSAC Advice Documents SAC047, SAC058, SAC061, SAC090, and SAC097 (08 June 2018)" [PDF, 182 KB], and directs the President and CEO or his designee(s) to implement the advice as described in the scorecard. SAC090 Recommendation 2 Board Action: The Board accepts this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work. See full resolution at and scorecard at https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en#1.g.

 

Phase 3Phase Update

ICANN received SSAC's approval of understanding and is in the process of evaluating the advice. Updated 8 May 2017: The ICANN organization understands SAC090 Recommendation 2 to mean that the scope of work presented in Recommendation 1 should answer the following questions:

1) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of names on lists such as the Reserved Names list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.1, the Ineligible Strings list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the Geographic Names list referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.4, as well as the IETF's Special-Use Domain Registry?

1a) If so, how should ICANN respond to changes made to these lists by organizations outside of ICANN's direct influence?

1b) If so, how should ICANN respond to a change in a list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) How should ICANN respond to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing of their special names lists?

3) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of private use names, which are names independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a private context?

3a) If so, how should ICANN deal with private use names like .home, .corp, and .mail?

3b) If so, how should ICANN respond to future collisions between private use names and new gTLDs? ICANN has confirmed its understanding of the advice with the SSAC and is currently evaluating the actionable items contained in the advice.

 

Phase 3Phase ChangeNow in Phase 3: Evaluate & Consider

 

Phase 2Phase Update

Updated: The ICANN organization understands SAC090 Recommendation 2 to mean that the scope of work presented in Recommendation 1 should answer the following questions:

1) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of names on lists such as the Reserved Names list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.1, the Ineligible Strings list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the Geographic Names list referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.4, as well as the IETF's Special-Use Domain Registry?

1a) If so, how should ICANN respond to changes made to these lists by organizations outside of ICANN's direct influence?

1b) If so, how should ICANN respond to a change in a list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) How should ICANN respond to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing of their special names lists?

3) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of private use names, which are names independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a private context?

3a) If so, how should ICANN deal with private use names like .home, .corp, and .mail?

3b) If so, how should ICANN respond to future collisions between private use names and new gTLDs? ICANN has confirmed its understanding of the advice with the SSAC and is currently evaluating the actionable items contained in the advice.

 

Phase 2AP FeedbackSSAC confirmed understanding and added the comment: Change "a Special-Use Domain Registry" to "The “IETF’s Special-Use Domain Registry”.

 

Phase 2Phase UpdateICANN is in receipt of the SSAC's response and/or comment to this item. ICANN will revert back with any questions.

 

Phase 2Phase Update

The ICANN organization understands SAC090 Recommendation 2 to mean that the scope of work presented in Recommendation 1 should answer the following questions:

1) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of names on lists such as the Reserved Names list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.1, the Ineligible Strings list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the Geographic Names list referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.4, as well as the Special-Use Domain Names Registry?

1a) If so, how should ICANN respond to changes made to these lists by organizations outside of ICANN's direct influence?

1b) If so, how should ICANN respond to a change in a list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) How should ICANN respond to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing of their special names lists?

3) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of private use names, which are names independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a private context?

3a) If so, how should ICANN deal with private use names like .home, .corp, and .mail?

3b) If so, how should ICANN respond to future collisions between private use names and new gTLDs? This understanding was sent to the SSAC on 26 January 2017.

 

Phase 2Phase Update

[Understanding was previously sent to the SSAC on 26 January 2017] The ICANN organization understands SAC090 Recommendation 2 to mean that the scope of work presented in Recommendation 1 should answer the following questions:

1) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of names on lists such as the Reserved Names list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.1, the Ineligible Strings list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the Geographic Names list referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.4, as well as the Special-Use Domain Names Registry?

1a) If so, how should ICANN respond to changes made to these lists by organizations outside of ICANN's direct influence?

1b) If so, how should ICANN respond to a change in a list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) How should ICANN respond to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing of their special names lists?

3) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of private use names, which are names independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a private context?

3a) If so, how should ICANN deal with private use names like .home, .corp, and .mail?

3b) If so, how should ICANN respond to future collisions between private use names and new gTLDs?  

 

Phase 2Board Understanding

The ICANN organization understands SAC090 Recommendation 2 to mean that the scope of work presented in Recommendation 1 should answer the following questions:

1) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of names on lists such as the Reserved Names list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.1, the Ineligible Strings list in AGB Section 2.2.1.2.3, the two-character ISO 3166 codes referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.3.2 Part III, and the Geographic Names list referenced in AGB Section 2.2.1.4, as well as the Special-Use Domain Names Registry?

1a) If so, how should ICANN respond to changes made to these lists by organizations outside of ICANN's direct influence?

1b) If so, how should ICANN respond to a change in a list that occurs during a round of new gTLD applications?

2) How should ICANN respond to groups outside of ICANN that assert standing of their special names lists?

3) Should ICANN formalize in policy the status of private use names, which are names independently selected by individuals and organizations that intend for them to be resolved only within a private context?

3a) If so, how should ICANN deal with private use names like .home, .corp, and .mail?

3b) If so, how should ICANN respond to future collisions between private use names and new gTLDs?

 

Phase 2Phase UpdateUnderstanding sent to SSAC for review.

 

Phase 2Phase ChangeNow in Phase 2: Understand

 

Phase 1Phase UpdateICANN acknowledged receipt of Advice.

 

Phase 1Phase UpdateSSAC published SAC090: SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf.