[Gnso-newgtld-wg] GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 18:52, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Rubens.  I think the list you linked is merely a summary of individual reports made to ICANN in the prior round.

The only available evidence is that evidence, so what the contractor might have access is to the individual reports.

> The focus of NCAP Study 1 is much broader and will likely include, for example, the attached data from 2017 dealing with Man in the Middle (MitM) interceptions of users and the resulting opportunity for DNS abuse (scams) and security risks, such as the ability to access the user’s files and/or servers for purposes of obtaining confidential information and/or installing malware.

All of them either require DNS labels with _ (underscore) that are already forbidden as domain names, or require 2nd level name collisions (like WPAD), which NCAP decided not to tackle.
Study 1 will likely include a link to the paper you attached, but because it's a cataloging effort, it will stop at that, so not going into evidenced harms, which was the topic at hand.

> 
> Regarding DNS abuse and the vulnerabilities created by name collisions, see  the “Board Scorecard” on CCT-RT linked below – page 5 Recommendation 15 classified as “pending” – “The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate community efforts to develop a definition of “abuse” to inform further action on this recommendation.”
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf>
The abuse is so much larger than name collisions that it would be reckless for the PDP to try addressing it just for that. There will be plenty of upcoming cross-community discussions on abuse in proper fora, starting at ICANN 66.
Rec. 15 was directed at many parties, not just SubPro.

> 
> Separately, I am not sure when this PDP WG will reach the Board’s directions to Sub Pro on the CCT-RT topics.  (See attached email from August 19.)   The specific recommendations sent to Sub Pro by the Board include Nos. 12, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34, and 35 at the link above.
> 

Unrelated to name collisions so I will let others chime in.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190923/1e8df863/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190923/1e8df863/signature.asc>