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.
Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas
Subjectivity in Risk Assessment: The current model defines "likely" as a "subjective probability of at least 66%". This lacks a standardized quantitative rubric, which may lead to the "inconsistent assessments between different evaluators" that the framework explicitly aims to avoid.
Ambiguity of Essential Entities: While a list of "Essential Entities" is provided (e.g., energy, health, digital infrastructure), the documentation states it is "not an exhaustive list". There should be clearer criteria or a formal process for how new entities are added to ensure predictability for applicants across different regions.
Transparency and Redactions: The procedure allows applicants to redact sections of Mitigation Plans to prevent malicious interference. However, if these redactions are too broad, it prevents the community from providing meaningful feedback during the 30-day public comment period.
Rigid Mitigation Timeframes: The framework mandates that mitigation implementation must not exceed two years. There is no stated path for extensions for highly complex collision risks that might require more time to safely resolve.
Privacy in Qualitative Analysis: When panelists investigate if queries can be attributed to specific "geographical regions, certain sectors or entities," the documents do not detail the specific privacy safeguards or data anonymization techniques used to protect end-user security.
Temporary Delegation Length: The decision to keep a string in Temporary Delegation for anywhere between 90 and 365 days is at the "sole discretion" of the Technical Review Team (TRT). Clearer milestones are needed to determine when 90 days is sufficient versus a full year.
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 protocols used during qualitative analysis and recommends more predictable milestones for the duration of Temporary Delegation phases to reduce uncertainty for all stakeholders.