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.

Submissions for this Proceeding

Name Collision Procedure Documentation

Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding

To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.

Name Collision Procedure Documentation Submission - Urbelis, Alexander
16 March 2026

Submission Summary:

 The Name Collision framework for the 2026 round correctly identifies the risk of collision

  between the DNS and alternative naming systems. But the assessment tools do not match the

  definition. The TRT's data sources (root server logs, recursive resolver data, NCO

 magnitude scores) were designed to detect intranet leakage. They cannot detect millions of

  registrations that r...


Name Collision Procedure Documentation Submission - (RySG), Registries Stakeholder Group
16 March 2026

Submission Summary:

The gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) provides comments on three items: main parts of the Name Collision assessment to be conducted before DITL; TMCH fee to be updated in function of the duration of the collection and monitoring phase; providing an explanation of underlying concerns when a string remains in Temporary Delegation. 


Name Collision Procedure Documentation Submission - ICANN85 FELLOW
16 March 2026

Submission Summary:

This submission highlights several critical gaps in the Name Collision Risk Management Framework. Key concerns include the subjective nature of the 66% risk threshold, the lack of exhaustive criteria for Essential Entities, and the potential for over-redaction in Mitigation Plans which could undermine public transparency. Furthermore, the submission seeks clarification on the privacy p...


Name Collision Procedure Documentation Submission - Mugure, Benson King'Ori
15 March 2026

Submission Summary:

While we appreciate the proposed framework's structural separation of powers designed to ensure objective oversight, our overall position is that the current design will severely hinder the rollout of new internet infrastructure. Specifically, the framework suffers from three major flaws: heavy bureaucracy and layering that creates unnecessary internal bottlenecks; a heavy reliance on human subjectivity rather than objectivity during data coll...