13:03:37 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Yes, thank you. Report reads very easily and is understandable to lay persons which is great. 13:03:47 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : I’ll be honest - I didn’t read it :-P 13:08:52 From Jaap Akkerhuis to All panelists : And there are more like Belkin 13:09:40 From Kimberly Carlson to All panelists : Attendance, recording, transcript will be posted on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/GwOJBw 13:12:05 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : According to the report, Karen states that all 4 examples are in scope. So, I am not sure I understand Matt's initial comment 13:12:56 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : #63 is from you Warren 13:13:50 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Yes, the first round was "A proof of concept" round in 2000 13:14:45 From Matt Larson to All panelists : [26] O. Kolkman, A. Sullivan and W. Kumari, "Internet-Draft draft-kolkman-cautious-delegation-00, A Procedure for Cautious Delegation of a DNS Name," 2 May 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kolkman-cautious-delegation-00.txt. 13:15:56 From Matthew Thomas to All panelists : She does state that all four are in scope for Study 1 (line 155 in the document). I think it is important here that we also note that certain types are in scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies per the proposed definition. 13:17:50 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : So, RFC7304 - A Method for Mitigating Namespace Collisions RFC8244 - Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement Seem very relevant 13:19:06 From Steve Crocker : Reference 27 seems to be the updated version of reference 26. 13:20:20 From Steve Sheng : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctld-mitigation-2014-10-02-en 13:20:27 From Steve Sheng : Name Collision Occurrence Mitigation for New ccTLDs 13:20:41 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Plus, ccTLDs have sitefinder type services in place even now 13:21:17 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : The JAS reports may even mention ccTLDs 13:21:18 From Rod Rasmussen to All panelists : Potential sources for ccTLD provisioning collisions: Anything documented by ICANN for the fast-track process (or others), CENTR studies?, Research we have overlooked due to searching for gTLD collisions. Others? 13:21:59 From Steve Crocker : I’m not aware of any name collisions within the two letter ascii cc name space. The existence of the 3166 table and the fact the space is pretty complete and stable probably eliminated most of the forces that would have created any name collisions. 13:23:17 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : @Steve - the fast track is not 2 letter ASCII 13:23:56 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : But also, this report is so skewed towards gTLDs. Everything about it. Look at Section 2.1 13:23:57 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctld-mitigation-2014-10-02-en 13:24:38 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : “For a period of at least 90 days, the new-ccTLD manager should implement continuous Controlled Interruption inserting the following records into the ccTLD zone (substituting "TLD" with the your new ccTLD string):" 13:25:19 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : @Steve: there are a large number of collisions with .co — intentional ones for .com names —— would you count those? 13:25:47 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : @Patrick - not confusability, correct 13:26:09 From Rod Rasmussen to All panelists : Agreed - Confusability is out-of-scope. 13:26:51 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : "Confusability" is also a huge issue in gTLDs and is being discussed in SubPro 13:27:00 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : World Trademark Review - “ICANN is now proposing to make a recommendation that newly launching ccTLD registries also implement the same Name Collision measures. As a result of this, ICANN has instructed the Country-Code Names Supporting Organisation to start a study to determine the impact of Name Collisions associated with the launch of new ccTLD extensions." 13:27:23 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : And SubPro has now started talking to the ccNSO about common elements 13:28:35 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Fast Track is not 2 letters 13:29:21 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : Also: RFC7304 - A Method for Mitigating Namespace Collisions RFC8244 - Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement 13:29:58 From Patrik Fältström to All panelists : https://gac.icann.org/activity/two-letter-country-codes-at-the-second-level 13:33:14 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : @Patrick - I though second level is out of scope 13:33:24 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : “RFC 7686 — The ".onion" Special-Use Domain Name “ also seems relevant 13:33:55 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : @James - right. Not trying to expand the scope, but TLDs are TLDs 13:34:29 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : What about the Alternate Root? 13:34:34 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : :) 13:35:19 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : Do you mean things like: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld :-P 13:35:41 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Exactly Warren - giving you a plug 13:35:59 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : Yay! I haz a plug :-) Thanks Jeff. 13:37:00 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Fom ICANN's site: "Name collisions are not new. The introduction of any new domain name into the DNS, whether a generic TLD, country code TLD or second-level domain name, creates the potential for name collision. However, queries for un-delegated TLDs at the root level of the DNS have received renewed attention because certain applied-for new TLD strings could be identical to name labels used in private networks. A secure, stable and resilient Internet is ICANN's number one priority. Therefore, we've made a commitment to the Internet community to launch a substantial effort to mitigate and manage name collision occurrence." 13:37:23 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Re: wildcarding, there are brief references to wildcarding in the report. I don't recall summaries of wildcarding studies/documentation per se being in the scope of the RFP? 13:39:31 From Karen Scarfone to All panelists : Anne—the RFP said the report was to include an “analysis of the impact of SiteFinder” 13:40:15 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Don't get me wrong...this is fantastic work 13:40:23 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Yes - I thought I heard Jeff asking for more summaries re documents/experiences related to wildcarding. 13:41:18 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Not sure more wildcarding stuff is specified in the RFP per se. 13:41:56 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Beyond "analysis of the impact of SiteFinder" 13:42:02 From Matt Larson : Or, expanding on Jim's comment, if you believe there are existing sources that were not summarized in a wider TLD context (e.g., Jeff mentioned the JAS reports), then please note that on the DG list. 13:42:41 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : So, there was a well known issue when the .cs ccTLD was delegated, breaking the computer science department $somewhere… But I cannot find the reference at the moment 13:42:53 From Matt Larson : @Anne: the issues with queried names matching wildcards in a surprising way is very similar to the broader issue of name collisions. 13:43:06 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Yes - but We should not be asking Karen to expand scope of RFP. 13:43:09 From Warren Kumari to All panelists : Can anyone remember what I’m on about? 13:43:22 From Matt Larson : To be clear, I'm not asking her to do anything else with wildcards. 13:43:24 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : getting plugs 13:43:35 From Matt Larson : I thought you might be, but if not, we're good! 13:44:00 From Karen Scarfone to All panelists : Thank you all for your feedback and additional references! Keep ‘em coming! 13:44:53 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : Found this short paragraph: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/issue-with-zm-tld/10593 13:46:59 From Jeff Neuman to All panelists : @Patrick - sorry, not yet 13:47:06 From Julie Hammer to All panelists : Makes sense to me Patrik. 13:47:24 From Russ Mundy to All panelists : @ Patrik - not enough time yet 13:47:57 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : hand up 13:49:25 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : RE - the Board questions - have we identified whether the question can be addressed by Study 1, Study 2, or Study 3? In other words, answered by which portion of the work plan? 13:51:58 From Anne Aikman-Scalese to All panelists : Thanks Jim. 13:52:18 From Kimberly Carlson : Thank you all, bye