[NCAP-Discuss] Outstanding Action Item: Name Collision Definition and Scope Correction

[Thomas, Matthew]

All,

We’ve had a long-standing action item to track down an error in the Name Collision definition and scoping document.  I tracked down the error and the proposed correction based on the NCAP DG recording [1] from the May 13, 2020 meeting [2]. I propose we make a small correction in the final Study 2 report, specifically in question 1 of the Board Questions, that highlights the erroneous inclusion of a scoping item. The correction is straight forward (we simply state the item should not be included). The change should not impact any of the existing Study 2 work. I do not foresee this as a contentious item, but more of a formality and being thorough and that our work is accurate and complete.

Details below:

The original NCAP Name Collision definition was approved to be the following (the full definition and scoping document can be found here [3]):

“Name collision refers to the situation in which a name that is used in one namespace may be used in a different namespace, where users, software, or other functions in that domain may misinterpret it. In the context of top level domains, the term ‘name collision’ refers to the situation in which a name that is used in the global Domain Name System (DNS) namespace defined in the root zone as published by the root zone management (RZM) partners ICANN and VeriSign (the RZM namespace) may be used in a different namespace (non-RZM), where users, software, or other functions in that domain may misinterpret it.”

The document contains a set of examples that are in-scope and out-of-scope data subjects. One of the examples in the out-of-scope section should not be included.

It was noted in the May 13, 2020 NCAP DG meeting that an item was erroneously included in the “In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies” section as it was in direct conflict with the definition above.  The error was item B.c in which: “Registrant Alice uses EXAMPLE.COM and the lets the registration expire.  Registrant Bob the registers and delegates EXAMPLE.COM.  Traffic intended for Alice’s use of EXAMPLE.COM is now received by Bob’s use of EXAMPLE.COM”.

By the definition provided, B.c cannot be included because it must be in a different namespace – “used in a different namespace (non-RZM)”. A re-registration, by the above definition, is not a different namespace.

Matt Thomas
NCAP Co-chair

[1] https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/2PZaELveqVJOG6-O9HDPZPUdQaHKX6a8hnVNr_IFzUvO9VBO3O4B1cfdh-I3kk_W
[2] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=132941347
[3]https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=/79437474/111387704/Definition%20of%20Name%20Collision%20and%20Scope%20of%20Work%20for%20the%20NCAP.pdf



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221121/c5a54b5a/attachment.html>