[NCAP-Discuss] =?utf-8?Q?ICANN=E2=80=99s_?=thoughts on controlled interruption

[Heather Flanagan]

In the chat of yesterday’s call, Ruben wanted to know why ICANN had decided against Enhanced Controlled Interruption in the past. The information I was thinking of is in their Name Collision Framework from July 2014:

"ICANN is interested in maintaining the reliability, security and stability of the DNS and the Internet.
As such, ICANN is interested in providing a good notification measure for those parties that may be
leaking queries intended for private namespaces to the public DNS. However, ICANN is also aware of
the privacy and legal risks associated with the honeypot approach described in SAC 062 and 066 and
the JAS report. ICANN has decided on balancing the good notification features  offered by  using  the
loopback address option with its superior privacy protection vs. the use of a honeypot. "

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf


I think the text will need to be clear in our recommendations why the discussion group thinks this decision by ICANN must be revisted by the Board.

Heather Flanagan
Spherical Cow Consulting



  Translator of Geek to Human
  hlf at sphericalcowconsulting.com



‌
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20220210/913d330e/attachment.html>