Domain Stakeholders Divided Over Seriousness of Potential Name Collisions
Domain stakeholders were divided over the degree to which potential name collisions would be a danger to consumers and businesses during the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) rollout, they said in interviews last week. Businesses were warned about the potential threat of name collisions and offered advice on how to protect companies from harm, in a report (http://bit.ly/1cZVZyI) released Wednesday by the Association of Competitive Technology (ACT) (WID Jan 24 p11). Stakeholders told us they disagree whether the seriousness of name collisions was worthy of drastic measures or minor adjustments. The lack of education and awareness about the possibility for name collisions, a concern of ACT’s report, also worried many stakeholders. ICANN said it’s working with such stakeholders to address any concerns.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The name collision issue could be “very similar to Y2K,” said Jonathan Zuck, president of ACT, which has sponsors including Microsoft and AT&T. Y2K wasn’t the threat it was made out to be, but many consumers made adjustments to their computer systems to prevent a problem, he said. The “specter” of name collisions was originally raised by ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the reports of which often ended up on the “back-burner,” he said. ACT wanted to make sure that consumers, and small businesses particularly, were aware of the potential for the problems and had plans to counteract possible name collision issues, Zuck said. ICANN is “caught in the middle” between the “great deal of momentum” behind the new gTLD rollout and others skeptical of its impact, he said.
ACT’s report was “extremely valid” and the domain industry and ICANN would do well to give it attention, said Amy Mushahwar, a Ballard Spahr lawyer working on fraud and breach matters for clients, including technology companies. “With certainty,” domain collisions “will happen,” but the “velocity” or how many clashes will occur is unknown, she said.
"ACT’s report speaks the language of systems integrators and programmers” adept at “avoiding or mitigating collisions,” said Steve DelBianco, NetChoice executive director. He acknowledged ICANN’s “guidance” on name collisions and cited it as an example of the “kind of technical coordination ICANN should be focusing on,” not the “global Internet governance game being played by Brazil and the U.N.,” he said. “ICANN has been working closely with our community to research and understand the possible risks associated with name collisions,” said Dave Piscitello, ICANN vice president-information and communication technology coordination. “The security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System is our top priority.” ICANN has a webpage dedicated to name collision information (http://bit.ly/1bn11Fm) and released a name collision guide for IT professionals on Dec. 5 (http://bit.ly/1aSGgBv).
ICANN studied the issue of name collisions years ago and found them not to be the threat presented today, said Mason Cole, vice president-communications for Donuts, a domain name registry. He suggested a “balanced, reasonable” approach to addressing the issue, not an “invasive procedure,” such as “delaying delegation of the TLD,” he said. Second-level domains most likely to cause a problem should be dealt with individually, he said. All security issues are worthy of examination, “but the facts are the facts and the fact is” name collisions are not as “apocalyptic” as they're being depicted, Cole said. “It’s time to move forward.”
"Playing the blame game” is “unproductive,” said Chief Marketing Officer Frederick Felman of MarkMonitor, which specializes in trademark and domain name protection. “Rather than criticizing any party,” stakeholders should “dedicate time and resources” on the name collision issue “to education, outreach and solution building,” he said.
Collisions could be a “massive” problem, but the concerns are still based on “predictions,” said CEO Nao Matsukata of FairWinds Partners, a domain name consultancy. “Nobody knows what will actually happen, and ICANN is attempting to mitigate the worst possible effects.” Businesses with intranets need to be aware of the potential for name collisions and have a strategy in place in the event of a problem, said Matsukata.
Domain name collisions present a “spectrum of risk” from “confusion in browser resolution for end users to wholesale IT security risk for misrouted commercial email and other traffic,” said Felman. To prepare, companies need to “reconfigure networks” and “rename systems,” among others, which requires an “enormous amount of planning and careful execution,” he said. ACT’s emphasis on outreach and education were the “most important” aspects of the report, said Felman. “The lack of awareness and education remains the biggest hurdle to the business community.”