Re: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comment on Proposal to Mitigate Name Collision Risks (filing deadline 17-Sep)

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

Sarah,

Thanks for very for altering us to the Verisign letter and study on .CBA.

Very interesting.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 16 sept. 2013 à 05:36, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> a 
écrit :

> Steve, All:
>  
> Thanks so much for circulating the BC comments and for adding your edits.  
> The BC concerns are confirmed by a report Verisign just released today 
> (attached).   
>  
> Verisign did a deep dive into just one of the new gTLDs  -- .CBA, which was 
> applied for by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.  The bank wrote a letter 
> to ICANN complaining that .cba had been improperly categorized by ICANN as 
> “uncalculated risk” and asked to be changed to the “low risk” category.  They 
> said that any name collision that the Interisle report reported as coming 
> from this string was their own traffic and they could remediate it.
> 
> In fact, the Verisign report showed that Commonwealth Bank of Australia at 
> best controls 6% of the root server traffic associated with the .cba string.  
> The rest of the traffic, which, presents numerous risks of collision, was 
> coming from over 170 countries including a significant portion of traffic 
> from Japan.  The traffic comes from a variety of servers, smart home devices, 
> offices, residences, etc. 
> 
> This small snapshot of one new gTLD shouts out for ICANN to do a deeper dive 
> into the new gTLDs to really understand these risks.  The .cba string 
> (unlike. .corp or .home) is not one that anyone would intuitively think could 
> result in collisions.  But in a global environment, it highlights that we 
> really have no idea what different cultures have previously named their 
> internal servers and devices.  How many of these enterprises even know ICANN 
> and the new gTLD launch exists?  Also, the study shows ICANN cannot rely (as 
> they are intending to do today) solely on their applicants to provide 
> evidence of “acceptable” risk. 
>  
> I hope the BC comments can add a line or two about this report to flag the 
> risks to large and small BC members and our customers.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sarah
>  
>  
> <Verisign CBA Name Collision Study and Letter to ICANN Board (2).pdf>