00:20:53	Jeff Schmidt:	What Neuman said - the Board didn't ask for "collisions at the TLD" I don't think.
00:23:12	Jeff Schmidt:	the "misinterpretation" and "unexpected behavior" aspects (as designated in SAC 66) is the right focus and I'm sure what the Board had in mind.  We're drawing overly technical distinctions which exclude significant problems.
00:27:05	Jeff Schmidt:	Why are we trying to hard to exclude delegated space from this discussion? What am I missing?
00:35:28	Patrik Fältström :	My claim is that the board do not want to know "what a name collision is" (in general). They want to know what "name collision" issues happens when they add a new string to the root zone.
00:39:31	Patrik Fältström :	What we must clarify for the board is that we will *NOT* answer the question "what is a name collision" and we are unfortunately stuck because the board actually letter by letter asked us "what is name collision".
00:39:48	Jeff Schmidt:	Agree with what Danny just said - we can call them collisions or tennis balls elsewhere.  "for the purpose of this document, we are looking at collisions at the TLD level and issues related to delegating new TLDs"
00:41:26	Jeff Schmidt:	If we're going with the "for the purpose of delegating new TLDs" then B.c is out
00:42:21	Jeff Schmidt:	B.b is a TLD delegation issue and should be IN SCOPE
00:43:43	Jeff Schmidt:	+1 
00:46:15	Jeff Schmidt:	B.b is a re-registration collision at the TLD level.  Because it's at the TLD it is *in scope* for this study.
00:47:31	Jeff Schmidt:	Yes "Registrant" is definitely the wrong word there.  :-(
00:47:49	Jeff Schmidt:	but, regardless, it describes a re-registration collision.
00:51:27	Patrik Fältström :	I do not care why. The TLD is undelegated.
00:51:32	Patrik Fältström :	That happens
00:51:57	Patrik Fältström :	@jeff Thanks :-)
00:52:55	Patrik Fältström :	Nooooooo! Don't try to define "name collision"!!!
00:53:03	Patrik Fältström :	:-)
00:58:24	Justine Chew:	Thank you @jim for offering to tidy up the text
00:59:00	Jeff Schmidt:	+1 Patrik 
00:59:07	Jeff Schmidt:	Definition by scope
01:00:36	Justine Chew:	Agree with Patrik. It seems to me that focusing on scope of what Board wants/should know would solve the "disagreement" we seem to be stuck at.
01:04:16	Anne Aikman-Scalese:	Sounds good Jim.
01:05:30	Anne Aikman-Scalese:	Thank you.
01:05:30	Patrik Fältström :	Thanks everyone!