Inform the community of the proposal to handle name collision on new TLDs and collect input.
Originally presented during the Name Collision Mitigation Update Session at ICANN 49 in Singapore.
3. Text
#ICANN49
Agenda
• New gTLD Collision Occurrence
Management Plan
• Outreach
• Collision Occurrence Mitigation
Framework – Draft Proposal
• Mitigation Interactions
• Q&A
4. Text
#ICANN49
Collision Occurrence Management Plan
• 7 October 2013: New gTLD Collision Occurrence
Management Plan adopted by ICANN Board New
gTLD Program Committee
• Plan Overview
o Defer delegating home and corp indefinitely
o Commission a study to develop a Name Collision Occurrence
Management Framework
o Each new gTLD to receive a Collision Occurrence Assessment
based on the Framework
o Alternate Path to Delegation for eligible strings
o Outreach Campaign
5. Text
#ICANN49
Name Collision Outreach
• Educational content published
o Information and resources hub on ICANN website
http://www.icann.org/namecollision
• Influential technology media outlets and industry associations targeted
o Media coverage in 14 countries, 6 languages
o 100+ IT industry associations contacted around the world
• Amplified reach through social media
o Engaged with LinkedIn CIO groups
o Promotion through Twitter (66K followers) and Facebook (10K likes)
• Ongoing efforts
o Name Collision Information kit (contact GDD-Communications@icann.org)
o Public mailing list coming soon
nc-info@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-info
7. Scope
• Initial Evaluation “DNS Stability String Review”
focused on a string’s potential impact on the
global DNS
• JAS research performed from the perspective of
end-systems as “consumers” of the global DNS
• JAS found no evidence to suggest that the
security and stability of the global Internet DNS
itself is at risk
8. Risk Assessment Objectives
• The frequency of possible collisions has received
substantial attention; JAS primary objective is to
advance discussion of the possible consequences
from the theoretical to the concrete
• Not all potential for collision results in collision
• Not all collisions are problematic
• Not all problematic collisions are equal
• Evaluate mitigation options
9. Definition
• Interisle: Name collision occurs when name
resolution takes place in a semantic domain other
than the one that was expected by a user.
• SAC062: The term “name collision” refers to the
situation in which a name that is properly defined
in one operational domain or naming scope may
appear in another domain (in which it is also
syntactically valid), where users, software, or
other functions in that domain may misinterpret
it as if it correctly belonged there.
10. Major Outreach and
Community Consultations
• 8-10 Mar: Verisign Name Collisions Workshop
(WPNC 14/IETF 89), London
• 26 Feb: Draft report released for ICANN public
comment period (closes 31 Mar)
• 17-21 Nov: ICANN 48 Buenos Aires
• 29 Oct: Online Trust Alliance (OTA) Collisions
Event, Washington DC
• 1 Oct: TLD Security Forum, Washington DC
11. Major Outreach and
Community Consultations
• Three JAS guest blog posts on DomainIncite
– 39 comments
• Active discussion on two email lists
• > 20 active “consumers” of colliding namespaces
• > 10 vendors
• > 40 other sources
12. Summary Findings
• Namespace collisions occur routinely throughout entire DNS
• Collisions occurred prior to delegation of every TLD since (at least) 2007
TLD Registration Date # SLDs in theoretical block list
.post 2012-08-07 > 50,000
.xxx 2011-04-15 > 40,000
.me 2007-09-24 > 10,000
.cw 2010-12-20 > 10,000
.asia 2007-05-02 > 5,000
.sx 2010-12-20 > 5,000
.rs 2007-09-24 > 5,000
.tel 2007-03-01 > 1,000
. xn--
mgba3a4f16a
2013-09-13 > 100
13. Summary Findings
• Collisions have been mentioned in research as
early as 2003
• The two previous new TLD pilot rounds yielded
no serious collision-related issues
• Failure modalities seem similar in all parts of the
DNS namespace
• Namespace expansion does not fundamentally or
significantly increase or change the risks
14. Why is this happening?
• Lack of appreciation/understanding of DNS
• DNS search list processing
• Intentional use of a namespace that is not under
the control of the using party
• Retirement/expiration of hostnames/2LD
registrations
• Colliding DNS namespaces are often purchased
– squatting, investing, domaining, drop-catching…
15. Lessons from other namespaces
• Other (important) namespaces have collisions
• Other (important) namespaces have changed
• Use notification/transition periods
– Advance notification
– Temporary grace/NACK period highly desirable
• 30-90 days typical
• There will be resistance to change
• In the end people and systems will adapt
16. Excerpt: Most people, and
certainly the members of
ADDL, welcome constructive
change. However, the
telephone is an extremely
important part of everyday
life, and major changes in its
use will have widespread
effects.
17. JAS Recommendations (1)
• The TLDs .corp, .home and .mail should be
permanently reserved
• “Controlled Interruption” zone (127.0.53.53)
immediately upon delegation and extending
for 120 days
– Non-delegated: implement following delegation
using wildcard
– Delegated/APD: implement using DNS Resource
Records (RR) for SDL Block List strings
18. JAS Recommendations (2)
• ICANN to monitor implementation
• ICANN to maintain emergency response
capability to act upon reported problems that
present “clear and present danger to human life”
• Don’t de-delegate at root level; use EBERO for
surgical edits if required
• Several recommendations around improved data
collection and archival at the root zone
19. Clear and Present Danger to Human Life
(C&PDHL)
• Balance not involving ICANN in commercial
disputes and allowing for situations where
inaction is not acceptable
• Defining and quantifying harm in any terms less
than C&PDHL on a global basis is impossible
• Cause “self-selection” of collisions-related reports
to ICANN
• Provide guidance to ICANN staff when evaluating
reports
20. Why 127.0.53.53?
• 127/8 loopback/localnet (RFC 1122 c. 1989)
• Intended to be “odd” enough to get attention and
rank in search engines
• Other options: RFC 1918 & Internet Honeypot
• Sophisticated network operators have options to
control 127.0.53.53 responses
– Response Policy Zone (RPZ), IDS/IPS
– Verified with BIND and Snort
21. Why 120 days?
• Certificate revocation period is a benchmark of
conservatism for a transition/buffer period
• Controlled interruption impacts different systems
differently; wide variance in time required for
detection and remediation
• Conscious of quarterly batch processing
23. Text
#ICANN49
Name Collision Mitigation Interactions
• Not anticipated to alter rate of new TLD delegations
• Activation of domain names under the new gTLD
o Already not allowed during 120-days from contracting
o Would also not be allowed during 120-days from delegation
Only exception to rule: nic.<tld> and under
• Registration/allocation of domain names under new gTLD
o Allowed from delegation, subject to RPM and other requirements,
Sunrise and Claims periods
o Registered/allocated names are subject to the normal Sunrise and
Claims period, depending on the period in which they are allocated
24. Text
#ICANN49
Name Collision Mitigation Interactions
• 100 names for promotion of TLD allowed
o Cannot be activated until the end of the no-activation period(s)
o Subject to other requirements in the Registry Agreement
• Alternate Path vs. Controlled Interruption Measure
o Newly delegated gTLDs: Alternate Path to Delegation not available
if/when Framework is adopted by ICANN Board
o Already delegated gTLDs: Only apply controlled interruption in
block list names (i.e., no DNS wildcard record under the TLD)
• Name Collision Reporting
o Already available 24/7 to affected parties
o New requirement in proposal is threshold for demonstrably severe
harm: “clear and present danger to human life”
26. Text
#ICANN49
Related Global Domains Division Sessions
26 March
10:30-12:00
24 March
15:15-16:30
24 March
15:15-16:45
24 March
17:00-18:30
TLD Registry - Ongoing Operations
New gTLD Program Auctions
TLD Acceptance
TLD Launch Process Experiences and
Registry Onboarding
IDN Variant TLDs Program Update
26 March
10:30-12:00
Hinweis der Redaktion
Name Collision Occurrence Management Plan7 October: Plan approved by the ICANN Board NGPC.home & .corp considered high risk & delegations deferred indefinitelyFramework for Name Collision Occurrence Management to be developed in cooperation with community, then applied to each proposed new gTLDAlternate Path to Delegation by blocking SLDs queried in historical data at DNS-OARC and other relevant datasetsOutreach to target potentially affected parties designed to mitigate future occurrences16 October: Announcement describing the implementation of the planAlternate Path to Delegation Reports & lists of SLDs to block for each applied for TLD already publishedReports are being published to TLD’s registry agreement page on ICANN.org for those TLD that have signed a registry agreementCollision Occurrence Management Plan1 November: Engaged lead for the development of the Name Collision Occurrence Management FrameworkThe Framework will:Identify appropriate parameters and processes to assess the probability and severity of impactSpecify corresponding mitigation to be applied per category of collisionBased on datasets from DNS-OCAR and others, e.g., internal name certificates data from Certification AuthoritiesBe published for public commentFirst public discussion about the Framework later today at 15:15 in this roomFinal version of the Framework is planned by March 2014 during the ICANN meeting in Singapore
December 2013: Launched multi-faceted outreach campaign Goals:Raise awareness of the issueEducate IT professionals on how to safeguard against itFirst Step: Create a resource hub at ICANN.org/namecollisionPublish a variety of content explaining Name CollisionMaterials include:Video introductionBlog post by Security Expert providing a high-level overview of managing collision occurrenceIn-depth report: Guide to Name Collision Mitigation for IT ProfessionalsFrequently Asked QuestionsForm allowing Internet users to report an incidence of harm caused by name collisionNext Step: Get the information into the hands of the people who have the potential to be most affectedTargeting key technology media outlets and influential industry associationsIssued an initial press releaseTracked nearly 40 pieces of coverage to dateMost notably The Register, Heise.de, Web Host Industry Review, and Zawya14 countries and 6 languages represented in coverageReaching out directly to industry associations (ongoing)Made contact with over 100 associationsResponse has been positive - many have published information and/or distributed directly to membersIssued a follow up press release serving as a point of reference both for associations and mediaReceived positive response from the likes of the European Telecommunications Network OperatorsStep 3: Amplify outreach through Social MediaActively promoting all educational materials, press releases on Twitter and FacebookICANN reaches 66 thousand followers on twitter and 10,000 Facebook usersIdentified trade groups and thought leaders on LinkedIn and engaged through their forumsCIO ForumCIO NetworkCIO ExchangeCDO/CIO/CTO Leadership CouncilCIO CommunityForbes CIO NetworkOutreach is ongoingRecently created a Name Collision Information kit, a zip file which can be distributed to interested parties via emailRequest the kit at gdd-communications@icann.orgFrancisco and team will be launching a public mailing list soon to allow the community to converse on how we can further our outreach efforts togetherEncourage you to joint the discussion!
Note the actual SLD block lists are even larger – the further back one goes the less DITL data is availableFirst DITL data January 2006
The Internet has shown that it needs RFC 1918-like DNS spaceBuffer previous usage and new usage with a notification period that will NACK some (but not all) useHope for the best, prepare for the worst
The Internet has shown that it needs RFC 1918-like DNS spaceBuffer previous usage and new usage with a notification period that will NACK some (but not all) useHope for the best, prepare for the worst
The Internet has shown that it needs RFC 1918-like DNS spaceBuffer previous usage and new usage with a notification period that will NACK some (but not all) useHope for the best, prepare for the worst
The Internet has shown that it needs RFC 1918-like DNS spaceBuffer previous usage and new usage with a notification period that will NACK some (but not all) useHope for the best, prepare for the worst
The Internet has shown that it needs RFC 1918-like DNS spaceBuffer previous usage and new usage with a notification period that will NACK some (but not all) useHope for the best, prepare for the worst
Name Collision Occurrence Management Plan7 October: Plan approved by the ICANN Board NGPC.home & .corp considered high risk & delegations deferred indefinitelyFramework for Name Collision Occurrence Management to be developed in cooperation with community, then applied to each proposed new gTLDAlternate Path to Delegation by blocking SLDs queried in historical data at DNS-OARC and other relevant datasetsOutreach to target potentially affected parties designed to mitigate future occurrences16 October: Announcement describing the implementation of the planAlternate Path to Delegation Reports & lists of SLDs to block for each applied for TLD already publishedReports are being published to TLD’s registry agreement page on ICANN.org for those TLD that have signed a registry agreementCollision Occurrence Management Plan1 November: Engaged lead for the development of the Name Collision Occurrence Management FrameworkThe Framework will:Identify appropriate parameters and processes to assess the probability and severity of impactSpecify corresponding mitigation to be applied per category of collisionBased on datasets from DNS-OCAR and others, e.g., internal name certificates data from Certification AuthoritiesBe published for public commentFirst public discussion about the Framework later today at 15:15 in this roomFinal version of the Framework is planned by March 2014 during the ICANN meeting in Singapore
Name Collision Occurrence Management Plan7 October: Plan approved by the ICANN Board NGPC.home & .corp considered high risk & delegations deferred indefinitelyFramework for Name Collision Occurrence Management to be developed in cooperation with community, then applied to each proposed new gTLDAlternate Path to Delegation by blocking SLDs queried in historical data at DNS-OARC and other relevant datasetsOutreach to target potentially affected parties designed to mitigate future occurrences16 October: Announcement describing the implementation of the planAlternate Path to Delegation Reports & lists of SLDs to block for each applied for TLD already publishedReports are being published to TLD’s registry agreement page on ICANN.org for those TLD that have signed a registry agreementCollision Occurrence Management Plan1 November: Engaged lead for the development of the Name Collision Occurrence Management FrameworkThe Framework will:Identify appropriate parameters and processes to assess the probability and severity of impactSpecify corresponding mitigation to be applied per category of collisionBased on datasets from DNS-OCAR and others, e.g., internal name certificates data from Certification AuthoritiesBe published for public commentFirst public discussion about the Framework later today at 15:15 in this roomFinal version of the Framework is planned by March 2014 during the ICANN meeting in Singapore