00:21:46 Rubens Kuhl: I suggest sending to all panelists and attendees, not only to all panelists 00:22:11 James Galvin (Afilias): @rubens, yes! 00:28:55 Matt Larson: Re: collision definition, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h1iuouwwmzitjyFlEPgJHLabgxhdTQTo7Ehfd1v1CBo/edit 00:29:41 James Galvin (Afilias): @danny - i think what you’re asking for is that we address the question of name collision definition sooner rather than later, i.e., in preference to going through our questions, right? 00:29:59 Karen Scarfone: @Anne I replied to that on the list about 10 minutes ago. “The purpose of that statement was to make it clear that my recommendations about not moving forward with Studies 2 and 3 as written did not imply that no further studies on name collision topics are or will be needed. Someone had asked me a while back to state that so the recommendations would not be misinterpreted to say more than they do.” 00:30:26 James Galvin (Afilias): Karen and work study 1 are fine. no issue with what Karen is working with. 00:31:08 James Galvin (Afilias): however, the discussion group will revisit the definition for itself. 00:34:37 Rubens Kuhl: It's your opinion, not mine, Jeff Schmidt and other's opinions. 00:35:17 Danny McPherson: Scope of work not definition 00:35:18 Matt Larson: I think my position is clear, but just to be pedantic: I'm not saying the definition of name collision needs to be frozen for all time. I'm only concerned about how it affects the scope of Study 1. And since we are in agreement that there is no issue with Study 1's scope, I therefore have no issue. 00:39:55 Danny McPherson: I disagree Jeff but we can do that later... 00:41:19 Danny McPherson: NO.. I said on the list there are risks that doesn’t make them collisions 00:41:26 Danny McPherson: Of course there are risks, they are very well known 00:44:03 Rubens Kuhl: Besides being collisions for a large number of people, the risk profile for re-registrations have been raised due to parties releasing traffic information, which attracts predators to re-register domains with lots of collisions. 00:44:26 Danny McPherson: I agree 00:44:34 Danny McPherson: With Anne, no Rubens… 00:46:32 James Galvin (Afilias): What document? there’s no paragraph to write. let’s have detailed discussion of the proper definition and write that down. 00:47:17 Rubens Kuhl: Greg, I refer you to the SubPro DG (prior to SubPro PDP) and to the SubPro PDP Charter as examples of people referring to re-registrations as collisions. 00:49:21 Danny McPherson: @Greg indeed! 00:50:55 Rubens Kuhl: Greg, some people - including me and Jeff Schmidt - still those as two sides of the same coin. So, it's not that we all now agree to call them differently. 00:51:08 Danny McPherson: Thanks Steve && Rod! 00:53:51 Danny McPherson: @Greg yup! 00:55:48 Danny McPherson: @Neuman: this text: “All four of these types of name collisions are in scope for Study 1. Only duplicate name collisions and shortened name collisions (types A.a, A.b, and A.c from the RFP) are in scope for Section 5 of this report (on data sets for Studies 2 and 3). No other types of name collisions are in scope for any parts of Study 1.” 00:56:08 Danny McPherson: @Neuman: other than that, not really any material work on it, as I noted in my email. 01:04:34 Matthew Thomas: https://www.consul.io/ 01:06:41 Rubens Kuhl: There was a brand of refrigerators called Consul, but it seems to have died of M&A. 01:06:58 Matthew Thomas: @Jeff. The unicorns are a moving target. They are many other strings that have within the past years suddenly become unicorns while other unicorns lost their horn and went away. 01:09:21 Danny McPherson: Why not Jeff? I call tell you what the top n are at the root and the riskiness of the queries.. 01:10:33 Rubens Kuhl: But we could preemptively evaluate the strings currently hitting the root since the volume is an indicator of likelihood of collisions. Not that all collisions to have such large volumes, but those are low-hanging fruits. 01:10:44 Danny McPherson: Yes, and operators oughta look and do some outreach as they change. 01:10:50 Danny McPherson: And / or ICANN 01:12:25 James Galvin (Afilias): The important detail for us is to provide to the Board the criterion, and then to tell the Board how to evaluate that criterion, precisely because the list generated by the criterion may change with time. 01:14:04 James Galvin (Afilias): With respect to outreach, Study 3 is about reviewing mitigation strategies in which I include outreach. So, yes, we should absolutely document in our answers that outreach can be effective and we should explain the efficacy so the Board can properly evaluate its use. 01:14:15 Rubens Kuhl: Outreach is a tool that was used in 2012 and indeed we should keep doing. 01:16:51 Rubens Kuhl: There is one gTLD that somewhat reminds those use cases which is .frogans. They went, applied and got their TLD.