Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

هذا المحتوى متوفر فقط باللغة (أو اللغات)

  • English

Name: Intellectual Property Constituency
Date: 28 Feb 2024
Affiliation: Intellectual Property Constituency
Other Comments

These comments are submitted by the Intellectual Property Constituency (“IPC”), whose membership includes and represents trade associations, large multinational corporations, as well as small businesses and individuals.


The IPC appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments in connection with the Draft Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study 2 Report and the proposed responses to ICANN Board questions. We note that the IPC's comments do not encompass the technical findings stated in the report. Our comments are limited to a general overview of certain issues the membership believes should be addressed by the NCAP Discussion Group prior to referring the report to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).


The IPC notes that the NCAP Study 2 Report does not make a recommendation as to whether a string that is designated as a Collision String by the Technical Review Team's assessment after test delegation to the root (and before contract award) should be removed from the root. Specifically, this would be a removal after the initial delegation for risk purposes. The IPC encourages the NCAP Discussion Group to specify a recommendation in this regard, even if that recommendation is simply that the Technical Review Team should make the determination whether to leave the string in the root or to remove it.


The IPC also notes that there is no specific recommendation in the Study 2 Report as to whether the Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework should be applied to a particular string before or after the Resolution of other evaluations and other ICANN processes such as Objections and/or String Contention. Given that name collision issues may be an important part of the assessment by an applicant as to whether to move forward with any given application, the IPC recommends that the NCAP Discussion Group modify the Study 2 Report to specify that the Name Collision Risk Assessment be conducted as soon as possible after it is determined that the applicant meets other technical and financial requirements. In this manner, expensive Objection and String Contention proceedings may be either avoided or resolved at an early stage in the process of bringing the TLD forward to contract award.


The IPC further suggests that the NCAP Discussion Group consider a potential situation if a .brand TLD is found to collide with its own internal TLD. In such instances, there should be accommodation for that TLD operator to implement the mitigation measures that it deems necessary to alleviate any effects of such collision, if any.


Lastly, with respect to the Recommendation not to proceed to conduct Study 3 in relation to mitigation efforts, the IPC supports that Recommendation. We understand that considerations of name collision risk occurring in the interaction between the DNS and various alternate root environments as described in SAC 123 is out-of-scope for the current NCAP work. These collisions nevertheless remain a matter of concern in the long term. The NCAP Discussion Group may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to recommend further study on this topic. In the view of the IPC, any such further study should not delay the timing for the next new gTLD application round.


Summary of Attachment

Summary of Submission

IPC provides comments on the non technical aspects of the NCAP Study 2 report. The comments are intended to encourage more definitive actions including the timing of the collision review in relation to other ICANN reviews and processes, determining whether to leave a string in the root or remove it and to expedite review to in order to avoid costly mitigation in the future. Further, any additional studies should not delay the timing of the next round.