DOCSLIB.ORG

Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team Final Report [CCT-Review] Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team Final Report Jonathan Zuck Sun Sep 9 13:18:21 UTC 2018 • Previous message: [CCT-Review] Well... • Next message: [CCT-Review] Appreciation • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Dear Cherine Chalaby, On behalf of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team and pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws Section, attached is the CCT Final Report and Recommendations for submission to the ICANN Board of Directors. The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic top- level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues related to the introduction of new gTLDs, and the Program's application and evaluation process. We would like to thank the entire ICANN Community, the ICANN Board, for thoughtful engagement and feedback throughout the process. Kind regards, Jonathan Zuck Chair of the CCT Review Team Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cct- review/attachments/20180909/0695801f/attachment-0001.html> COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW Final Report Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team 8 September 2018 ICANN | COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW | September 2018 | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Background 6 Competition and Consumer Choice 7 Consumer Trust and Safeguards 8 Application and Evaluation 10 Rights Protection Mechanisms 10 Recommendations 12 Data Gathering 12 ICANN Contractual Compliance 12 Conclusion 13 2 CCT REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS 14 3 BACKGROUND ON THE COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW 26 4 HISTORY OF THE NEW GTLD PROGRAM 29 History of the Expansion of the DNS Prior to 2000 29 Previous gTLD Expansions 30 Background of the 2012 New gTLD Program 30 5 DATA-DRIVEN ANALYSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 32 Recommendation 33 Competition and Consumer Choice 33 Consumer Trust/Safeguards 34 6 COMPETITION 36 Economic Framework for Competition Analysis 37 The Structure of the TLD Industry 41 Effect of New gTLD Entry on Industry Concentration 48 Concentration Among Registry Operators 50 Recommendations 52 A Prototype Country-Specific Analysis 52 Measures of Concentration Worldwide and in the LAC Region 54 Concentration Among Registrar Owners 54 Concentration Among Back-End Providers 54 Price Analysis 55 Recommendations 58 Potential Impact of “Parked” Domains on Measures of Competition 60 Geographic Differences in Parking Behavior 63 Relationship Between Parking and DNS Abuse 64 Recommendations 65 7 CONSUMER CHOICE 67 Previous Studies 68 CCT Analysis 68 CCT Analysis: Trademarks and Defensive registrations 70 Recommendations 71 ICANN | COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW | September 2018 | 2 Benefits vs. Confusion to End-users 73 Registry Policies 74 Recommendation 76 8 CONSUMER TRUST 78 Background 78 Awareness and Visitation 78 Expectations about Relationship of gTLD Name to Websites Using that gTLD 79 Public Trusts Legacy gTLDs More Than New gTLDs 80 Consumer Behavior That Indicates Trust 81 Registration Restrictions Contribute to Trust 82 Consumer Trust in the Domain Name System Overall Since the Introduction of New gTLDs 82 Conclusions 83 Recommendations 83 Further Review 86 9 SAFEGUARDS 88 DNS Abuse 88 Impact of Safeguards 102 Recommendations 105 Mitigating Abusive Activity 106 Security Checks 107 Making and Handling Complaints 108 Recommendations 109 Safeguards for Sensitive and Regulated Strings 110 Recommendations 111 Safeguards for Highly-Regulated Strings 113 Recommendations 115 Special Safeguards Related to New gTLDs with Inherent Governmental Functions and Cyberbullying 116 Recommendations 117 Restricted Registration Policies 117 Public Interest Commitments 118 Recommendations 123 Rights Protection Mechanisms 124 INTA Impact Study 129 ICANN Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Metrics Reporting 132 Conclusion 136 Recommendations 138 10 APPLICATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS OF THE NEW GTLD PROGRAM 141 Applications and the “Global South” 141 Program Outreach 142 Applicant Informational Support 143 New gTLD Application and Program Costs 144 Recommendations 144 Improved Outreach 145 Informational Content 145 Program Costs 145 Recommendations 146 Preventing Delegations That Would Be Confusing or Harmful 147 ICANN | COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW | September 2018 | 3 Recommendation 149 Allowing Specific Communities to Be Served by a Relevant TLD 151 Recommendation 152 Effectiveness of the Dispute Resolution Process in Cases of Formal String Objection 153 Recommendation 156 11 APPENDICES 158 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 158 Appendix B: Review Process 161 Appendix C: Surveys and Studies 164 Appendix D: Public Comments 167 Appendix E: Terms of Reference 169 Appendix F: Fact Sheets 177 Appendix G: Participation Summary 179 Appendix H: Possible Questions for a Future Consumer Survey 180 Appendix I: Bibliography 182 ICANN | COMPETITION, CONSUMER TRUST, AND CONSUMER CHOICE REVIEW | September 2018 | 4 1 Executive Summary ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) called for a regular review of the degree to which the New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program promoted consumer trust, choice and increased competition in the Domain Name System (DNS) market. This review is called the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review (CCT).1 The AoC further called on the CCT reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the application and evaluation process for new gTLD applicants and the safeguards put in place to mitigate the risks associated with the expansion of generic top-level domains. These reviews are important because they provide ICANN with an assessment of how the new gTLD round performed in these areas and guidance on key issues (including competition, consumer protection, security, malicious abuse, and rights protection issues) as it contemplates further increase in the number of top- level domains (TLDs). The CCT was asked to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the New gTLD Program in these key areas and assess whether the Program resulted in net benefits to users of the DNS. The review team endeavored to be as objective as possible and to base its findings on available data. The more objective the findings, the more likely the impact of implemented recommendations can be measured. The idea of using metrics to evaluate the performance of the DNS began six years ago with an ICANN Board resolution2 that called on the community to identify quantitative targets to assess the impact of the New gTLD Program on consumer trust, choice, and competition in the DNS marketplace. Although the particular metrics developed at that time aided the review team's analysis, they ultimately did not form the basis for the majority of the review. However, the CCT Review Team did strive to employ quantitative analysis wherever possible. The CCT Review Team found that while the New gTLD Program is quite new and the data are incomplete, on balance the expansion of the DNS marketplace has demonstrated increased competition and consumer choice and has been somewhat successful in mitigating its impact on consumer trust and rights (particularly trademark) protection. That said, the review team concluded that the New gTLD Program should be regarded only as a “good start,” and that a number of policy issues should be addressed before any further expansion of gTLDs. In particular, the review team found that critical data were in short supply for the analysis of competition, the effectiveness of safeguards, and the promotion of consumer trust and geographic representation of applicants. Even the definition of the DNS market itself is problematic without additional information about whether consumers view new gTLDs as substitutes for other domain names, such as country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Some gTLDS compete in narrow markets that serve specialized groups of registrants, and alternative online identities such as Facebook and Yelp pages and third-level domains may serve as substitutes for registrations in gTLDs. Consequently, the CCT Review Team recommends that ICANN enhance its capabilities to gather and analyze data, in particular those used by ICANN's Contractual Compliance Department, prior to further increasing the number of gTLDs. We also identify certain policy issues that the community should resolve prior to the 1 On 30 September 2009, ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce signed the AoC, which— among other things—committed ICANN to periodically organizing Community-led review teams to assess the impact of the New gTLD Program on the domain name marketplace. In January 2017, the AoC expired following the IANA transition in October 2016. However, many of the provisions contained in the AoC—including Community-led reviews of competition, choice, and trust in the domain name marketplace—have been incorporated into ICANN’s revised bylaws (see ICANN, “Bylaws for Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers: Section 4.6: Specific Reviews,” amended 1 October 2016, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4). 2 ICANN Board Resolution 2010.12.10.30, “Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation,”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BUILD Internet Domain Registry Announces It Is Now Accepting
    .BUILD Internet domain registry announces it is now accepting bitcoin payments from its customers THE NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAIN IS THE FIRST REGISTRY IN THE DOMAIN NAME ECOSYSTEM TO ACCEPT A CRYPTOCURRENCY September 19th, 2014 San Francisco, CA - .Build, the new Top Level Domain (TLD) for internet domain names announced it will now accept bitcoin as a payment method from its customers. .BUILD, went live in April of 2014 is a part of the new expanded Internet made up of many new TLD's beyond .com, .net and .org. By having a meaningful extension to a website or email .BUILD provides an opportunity for companies to improve their online identity and web presence with the power of an industry- specific domain name. These targeted domains will become an integral part of any company’s web presence and SEO strategy in 2014 and beyond. “We are excited to be a leader in the creation and innovation of the New Internet,” says George Minardos, CEO and Founder of .BUILD. “As security with online payments becomes a growing concern every day, it was the logical next progression in the virtual building world to accept a cryptocurrency standard like Bitcoin. At .BUILD it is our mission to constantly improve and innovate the way the domain name industry conducts business in order constantly provide value for end users." .BUILD is the name provisioner of domain names ending in .BUILD, which and are sold through all the major registrar channels such as GoDaddy, Crazy Domains, Enom, Network Solutions, Name.com, 1&1, Tucows, United domains, Uniregistry etc.
    [Show full text]
  • XYZ Defeats .COM in “David Vs. Goliath” Lawsuit XYZ Wins Lawsuit Against Verisign in Summary Judgment
    Contact: Shayan Rostam Global Director of Registry Operations, .xyz [email protected] .XYZ Defeats .COM in “David vs. Goliath” Lawsuit XYZ Wins Lawsuit against Verisign in Summary Judgment Los Angeles, CA -- On October 26, 2015, XYZ, the registry operator behind .xyz - the world’s most popular new domain extension - announced the company had defeated Verisign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN) in a lawsuit dating back to December 2014. By granting XYZ a victory on summary judgment, the court found that XYZ won the case as a matter of law because there were no triable issues for a jury. The trial was originally scheduled to begin on November 2, 2015. Verisign, best known for operating .com and .net, alleged that XYZ lied when it published the registration numbers reflecting its tremendous growth and made statements about registrants having a hard time finding good .com domain names. Many believed the lawsuit was a classic example of “David vs. Goliath,” with the industry incumbent attempting to litigate new competition out of business. XYZ states that it knew Verisign’s claims were not legitimate and had no choice but to defend itself. Although legal bills were in the seven-figure range, XYZ made a stand for every startup and small business that is bullied by large, established companies. “At the time the lawsuit was filed, .xyz had only been globally available for 6 months. We were shocked that an industry-giant would file such claims against my small business. I also took it as a compliment,” said XYZ’s CEO and Founder Daniel Negari. According to XYZ’s General Counsel, Grant Carpenter, “these tactics appear to be part of a coordinated anti-competitive scheme by Verisign to stunt competition and maintain its competitive advantage in the industry.” In line with the purpose of ICANN’s gTLD program, the mission of .xyz is to provide internet users with competition and choice when selecting a domain name.
    [Show full text]
  • From WHOIS to WHOWAS: a Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy Under the GDPR
    From WHOIS to WHOWAS: A Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy under the GDPR Chaoyi Lu∗†, Baojun Liu∗†¶B, Yiming Zhang∗†, Zhou Li§, Fenglu Zhang∗, Haixin Duan∗¶B, Ying Liu∗, Joann Qiongna Chen§, Jinjin LiangY, Zaifeng ZhangY, Shuang Hao∗∗ and Min Yang†† ∗Tsinghua University, †Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, flcy17, zhangyim17, zfl[email protected], flbj, [email protected], [email protected] §University of California, Irvine, fzhou.li, [email protected], ¶Qi An Xin Group, Y360 Netlab, fliangjinjin, [email protected], ∗∗University of Texas at Dallas, [email protected], ††Fudan University, m [email protected] Abstract—When a domain is registered, information about the [39], online advertising [55], [96], [103], [102] and usability registrants and other related personnel is recorded by WHOIS of privacy notices [104], [78], [79], [90], [50], [49], [27], [72]. databases owned by registrars or registries (called WHOIS providers jointly), which are open to public inquiries. However, Due to its broad scope, not only does the GDPR protect due to the enforcement of the European Union’s General Data normal users browsing websites, users setting up websites and Protection Regulation (GDPR), certain WHOIS data (i.e., the the associated infrastructure are also protected. One example records about EEA, or the European Economic Area, registrants) is domain registration. After a user registers a domain name, needs to be redacted before being released to the public. Anec- e.g., example.com, its sponsoring registrar and upper-stream dotally, it was reported that actions have been taken by some registry will store his/her personal information like name and WHOIS providers.
    [Show full text]
  • ("Agreement"), Is Between Tucows Domains Inc
    MASTER DOMAIN REGISTRATION AGREEMENT THIS REGISTRATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), is between Tucows Domains Inc. ("Tucows") and you, on behalf of yourself or the entity you represent ("Registrant"), as offered through the Reseller participating in Tucows' distribution channel for domain name registrations. Any reference to "Registry" or "Registry Operator" shall refer to the registry administrator of the applicable top-level domain ("TLD"). This Agreement explains Tucows' obligations to Registrant, and Registrant's obligations to Tucows, for the domain registration services. By agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Registrant agrees to be bound by the rules and regulations set forth in this Agreement, and by a registry for that particular TLD. DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION. Domain name registrations are for a limited term, which ends on the expiration date communicated to the Registrant. A domain name submitted through Tucows will be deemed active when the relevant registry accepts the Registrant's application and activates Registrant's domain name registration or renewal. Tucows cannot guarantee that Registrant will obtain a desired domain name, even if an inquiry indicates that a domain name is available at the time of application. Tucows is not responsible for any inaccuracies or errors in the domain name registration or renewal process. FEES. Registrant agrees to pay Reseller the applicable service fees prior to the registration or renewal of a domain. All fees payable here under are non-refundable even if Registrant's domain name registration is suspended, cancelled or transferred prior to the end of your current registration term. TERM. This Agreement will remain in effect during the term of the domain name registration as selected, recorded and paid for at the time of registration or renewal.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin American and Caribbean DNS Marketplace Study
    Latin American and Caribbean DNS Marketplace Study Contents 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4 2. An Introduction to the Region .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Which countries are included in the Study? ................................................................................ 7 3. The Internet Environment in the LAC Region .................................................................................... 8 3.1 Factors influencing domain name uptake ................................................................................... 8 3.2 Domain name growth drivers ................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Foundations of Internet development ...................................................................................... 15 3.4 Internet users and Internet use in the region ........................................................................... 33 3.5 Local languages in the region .................................................................................................... 39 4. The Domain Name Industry in the LAC region ................................................................................ 40 4.1 Domain name registries ............................................................................................................ 41 4.2 International Registrars............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • [Server: Whois.Verisign-Grs.Com] Domain Name
    Domain Name: GRAHAMBUILDING.COM Registry Domain ID: 2371376104_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.uniregistrar.com Registrar URL: http://www.uniregistry.com Updated Date: 2021-08-01T21:33:31Z Creation Date: 2019-03-20T18:33:36Z Registry Expiry Date: 2022-03-20T18:33:36Z Registrar: GoDaddy Online Services Cayman Islands Ltd. Registrar IANA ID: 1659 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1 4805058800 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Name Server: NS1.DAN.COM Name Server: NS2.DAN.COM DNSSEC: unsigned URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/ >>> Last update of whois database: 2021-10-02T16:38:50Z <<< For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily refect the expiration date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration. TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Internet Registries Offer the Best Protection for Domain Owners?
    Which Internet registries offer the best protection for domain owners? Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst, EFF Gus Rossi, Global Policy Director, Public Knowledge Mitch Stoltz, Senior Staff Attorney, EFF July 27, 2017 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 1 In the Internet’s early days, those wishing to register their own domain name had only a few choices of top-level domain to choose from, such as .com, .net, or .org. Today, users, innovators, and companies can get creative and choose from more than a thousand top-level domains, such as .cool, .deals, and .fun. But should they? It turns out that not every top-level domain is created equal when it comes to protecting the domain holder’s rights. Depending on where you register your domain, a rival, troll, or officious regulator who doesn’t like what you’re doing with it could wrongly take it away, or could unmask your identity as its owner—even if they are from overseas. To help make it easier to sort the .best top-level domains from the .rest, EFF and Public Knowledge have gotten together to provide this guide to inform you about your choices. There’s no one best choice, since not every domain faces the same challenges. But with the right information in hand, you’ll be able to make the choice that makes sense for you. Before proceeding it’s worth noting the difference between a registry and a registrar. The domain registry is like a wholesaler, who operates an entire top-level domain (TLD) such as .com.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Domain Blocking Exists Advantage of These Gtlds to Their Own Advantage
    What is Domain Blocking? Luckily, a new method of protecting your brand has arisen, known Simply registering these domains themselves was also not as “Domain Blocking.” Domain Blocking is a new form of brand considered ideal, because many companies really did not want to protection which involves registering dormant domain names in have ownership in anything related to the adult entertainment order to prevent anyone else from registering or using them. business. Domain Blocking is a defensive measure which businesses can use To provide a service to prevent popular brands from having (likely to protect a trademark from abuse. Domain blocking itself is a very fraudulent) sites crop up with well-established trademarks, the ICM simple concept. Theoretically you could do something similar registry allowed owners of trademarks to opt out having one of manually by registering a copy of your trademark, or variation of these TLDs. your trademark across each gTLD, however many services exist which will handle most of the process for you at the moment you The need for this soon spread beyond the original .xxx gTLD. The register your brand. Domain blocking is slightly different than growth of new gTLDs with a large variety of extensions created registering a domain, as it will not resolve to a site, but instead will a wide new frontier for abuse. There are now more than 1500 simply block anyone else from registering it, thereby protecting different domain extensions available. These range from the well against its fraudulent use known .com and .net domains, to .biz, .ninja, .guitar, to .lol.
    [Show full text]
  • Sued Enom and Tucows
    Case 2:17-cv-01310-RSM Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 27 1 HON.___________________ 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 NAMECHEAP, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:17-cv-1310 corporation, 10 COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, 11 v. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 12 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT—SPECIFIC TUCOWS, INC., a Pennsylvania PERFORMANCE 13 corporation; ENOM, INC., a Nevada 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 14 Defendants. 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 17 Plaintiff Namecheap, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Namecheap”), by and through its undersigned 18 attorneys, hereby complains against Defendant Tucows, Inc. (“Tucows”), Defendant eNom, Inc. 19 (“eNom” and collectively with Tucows, “Defendants”), and defendants identified as Does 1 20 through 10 (“Doe Defendants”) as follows: 21 NATURE OF THE ACTION 22 1. Namecheap brings this action against eNom and its successor-in-interest, Tucows, 23 to enforce a contractual obligation to transfer all Namecheap-managed domains on the eNom 24 platform to Namecheap. A true and correct copy of the July 31, 2015 Master Agreement 25 executed by Namecheap, on the one hand, and eNom and United TLD Holding Co., Ltd. trading 26 as Rightside Registry (“Rightside”), on the other hand (the “Master Agreement”) is attached as 27 Exhibit A, with redactions to preserve confidentiality of information not relevant to this dispute. focal PLLC COMPLAINT 900 1st Avenue S., Suite 201 CASE NO. _______________ - 1 Seattle, WA 98134 Tel (206) 529-4827 Fax (206) 260-3966 Case 2:17-cv-01310-RSM Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 27 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-12-09 RIPE WG 2020-12-01-Data
    Measuring ROA deployment at the top of the DNS Or, Taking a Simple Number and Really, Really, Really, Over Thinking It Edward Lewis RIPE WG Interim Session 9 December 2020 | 1 Origin of This Work • CENTR Jamboree 2019 – Job Snijders on the agenda to talk to Registry Operators – The Topic: RPKI for ccTLD Peers • Why the ccTLDs ought to validate routing information – Expected a talk on how RPKI could protect routes to name servers • So, I began to work on a talk related to that (route information signing) | 2 Setting Expectations • The central theme of this talk is the methodology – What is covered in the assessment – How the experiment space is divided • There's not much detail on RPKI and ROA's progress – Not enough time has elapsed to see penetration – No consideration of whether obstacles exist | 3 Measuring ROA Deployment in the DNS Core ¤ This talk is not promoting "ROA adoption", just measuring it ¡ An application/service-specific look at adoption • The DNS service, particularly the authoritative core ¤ What is the DNS Core? ¤ What are ROAs? | 4 The DNS Core (in Cartoon Form) root ccTLDs gTLDs arpa. in-addr ip6 The sub-ccTLDs sub-gTLDs # # Core # # | 5 I May "Slip Up" and talk about TLDs this way in the talk root ccTLDs gTLDs arpa. in-addr ip6 The sub-ccTLDs sub-gTLDs # # Core # # | 6 ROAs = Route Origination Authorization • RPKI is a Public Key Infrastructure framework deployed to secure BGP against invalid or unauthorized route announcements – ROA stands for Route Origination Authorization is a cryptographic attestation that the ASN is authorized to originate a network prefix IP Prefix Next ASN Another ASN Another ASN ..
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Public Comments for the Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision
    Report of Public Comments Title: Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision Risks Publication Date: 5 August 2013 Prepared By: Francisco Arias & Russ Weinstein Comment & Reply Period: Important Information Links Comment Open Date: 5 August 2013 Comment Close Date: 27 August 2013 Announcement Reply Open Date: 28 August 2013 PuBlic Comment Box Reply Close Date: 17 SeptemBer 2013 View Comments SuBmitted Report of PuBlic Comments Time (UTC): 23:59 Staff Contact: Cyrus Namazi Email: [email protected] Section I: General Overview and Next Steps ICANN solicited puBlic comment from 5 August to 17 SeptemBer on the proposal to mitigate the collision risks Between new gTLDs and existing private uses of the same strings. ICANN received over 70 comments in the period from a range of sources, including applicants and those affiliated with applicants, corporations not affiliated with applicants, various non-DNS related industry organizations, and various DNS related industry organizations. Some key themes expressed in the comments included: The approach or methodology of the study “Name Collisions in the DNS” The categorization of the TLD’s into the risk profiles The assessment of the risks of name collision in the study “Name Collisions in the DNS” Support or criticism of the proposed risk mitigation tactics Alternative methods for risk mitigation The next steps will Be for ICANN to consider refining the proposal Based on the input from the community and for the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to consider the issue. Section II: Contributors At the time this report was prepared, a total of eighty one (81) community submissions had been posted to the Forum.
    [Show full text]
  • Neustar® Registry Services
    Neustar® Registry Services .US PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME PROPOSAL Prepared for: Submitted by Neustar, Inc. POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – NOVEMBER 2016 Contacts: Crystal Peterson, Director – Registry Services; [email protected] Kimberly Miller, Associate General Council – External Affairs; [email protected] Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 .US STAKEHOLDER REVIEW & APPROVAL ....................................................................................................................... 5 BENEFITS TO THE USTLD ................................................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND & POLICY.................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 .US Reserved/Restricted Names Policy ..................................................................................................................... 7 OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 KEY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]