00:37:10 Rubens Kuhl: Actually, I believe the still undelegated strings from 2012 could more interesting for a repeat analysis. 00:37:14 Rubens Kuhl: Like .web. 00:38:17 James Galvin (Afilias): repeating for attendees - sure Rubens, good suggestion 00:38:51 Justine Chew: Based on what Rubens suggested, are we then clear on what we mean by "repeat analysis from 2012"? 00:39:53 Jothan Frakes: If there is reassessment, would this release names as well as add them to protected list? 00:40:09 James Galvin (Afilias): @justine - there’s still room for interpretation. speaking personally, i have a point of view, there’s a point of view in the JAS and Interisle reports, and there’s whatever we decide on here as WG consensus. 00:40:22 Jothan Frakes: ie could home corp or mail get un-blocked 00:40:45 Justine Chew: @Matt T , what you said about .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL earlier ....where is that recorded? 00:40:46 James Galvin (Afilias): @jothan, our job is to provide guidance on what to consider when making a decision 00:40:58 Rubens Kuhl: While we haven't talked about it, I agree with Jim's comment in the document that a test system doesn't look like a worthwhile deliverable. 00:41:24 James Galvin (Afilias): the decision belongs to the board. so, speaking broadly, sure the board could interpret our guidance to allow for delegation, or not as it sees fit. 00:42:26 James Galvin (Afilias): @justine - are you referring to the Board resolution or something else? I’m not sure. 00:43:30 Justine Chew: @jim, which question of mine are you referring to? 00:43:31 James Galvin (Afilias): @justine - regarding your question about .corp, .home, .email 00:43:31 Steve Crocker: Apologies. Meant for that to be just to Jothan 00:44:54 Justine Chew: @Jim, that question arose some what Matt T said earlier. I'm not sure if he referred to the Board resolution or not. 00:45:06 Justine Chew: *arose from what 00:45:57 James Galvin (Afilias): @justine - well, for now, let me say that what is labeled question 10 in the matrix we’re reviewing is a quote from the Board resolution. that is the action to us in this discussion group. 00:46:16 Justine Chew: Maybe I need to listen to the recording after. 00:48:42 Justine Chew: @Jim, okay, I think you're right. 00:48:56 Justine Chew: Thanks. 00:51:37 Jothan Frakes: Would there be a means for a sole applicant to make an NCAP appeal for appropriate circumstances? an example of this might be an alt-root project that wants to come out of the shadows 00:52:15 Jothan Frakes: I get asked this a lot 00:52:29 Jothan Frakes: ok that's more a board call - we're just scientists. ok 00:53:19 Jothan Frakes: thanks Jim for fielding the q - this arms me for handling some of the questions I am approached with 00:56:25 Jothan Frakes: just to round out the thought on the alt project, they'd be the most likely source of the traffic seen and want to formalize by applying. 00:57:50 Jeffrey Neuman: @Jothan - so long as we are not discussing any kind of preferential rights from their applications 00:59:08 Jeffrey Neuman: If we design a test, then who is the one that determines the demarcation line between "passing the test" and "failing the test". 01:00:48 Justine Chew: @Jim, what's your current take on your comment of "Questioning the value of building a test system"? 01:00:50 James Galvin (Afilias): +1 Jeff - regarding your test question 01:00:52 Jothan Frakes: very important point about preferential rights, @Jeff. I do point that out in conversations when asked, that there's no entitlement inferred. 01:01:37 Jeffrey Neuman: @JeffS, but we do need to provide predictability and certainty to applicants 01:01:55 Jeffrey Neuman: We cannot leave it as a completely subjective decision 01:01:57 Jothan Frakes: Can geographical measurement be factored into 7-8-9 - ie 'regionally' from data 01:03:01 Jothan Frakes: Warren is GMTA w this concept. I was thinking perhaps more being able to regionalize to continent or region 01:03:02 James Galvin (Afilias): +1 JeffS regarding testing. principles versus hard testing is an important discussion point for this group, precisely because of gaming versus predictability. 01:04:20 Jothan Frakes: is 9 a polite way of stating someone could leverage proxies and api systems to generate false NC? 01:04:32 Jeffrey Neuman: I think there are a couple of types of results and those results could come with different forms of mitigation. But at the end of the day, if there is going to be a determination that a string is too risky to delegate at all, then that should be as objective of a ttest we can create. 01:05:08 James Galvin (Afilias): @jothan - I would say yes 01:05:18 Jeffrey Neuman: There is too much time, money and resources spent by applicants and others to just make it a completely subjective determination based on losse criteria 01:06:36 Jothan Frakes: agree @jeff - AND perhaps to take that a step further, I am grateful to see this group's work, as applicants in 2012 seemed thirsty for a list of what NOT to apply for to save time and money (hassle, etc) 01:09:10 James Galvin (Afilias): i can comment on costing after get through any discussion so far. 01:13:01 Jothan Frakes: I like JAS proposal. I think that many of the applicants would need data support or other resources that might fall outside of their level of expertise 01:15:05 Justine Chew: +1 JeffN, that's why I asked if we understand what we mean by "repeating the analysis from 2012". 01:15:07 Rubens Kuhl: Applicants will lack scale that an evaluator gets out of analysing all strings. 01:16:13 Jothan Frakes: [comment] _IF_ the alt-root coming from the shadows scenario I described earlier could include some rationale or criteria to explain that they themselves were the cause of the NC patterns seen[/comment] 01:18:07 Jaap Akkerhuis: I have to leave for an other call, bye 01:19:28 Jeffrey Neuman: Perhaps a threshold to go onto to step 2 of the evaluation 01:19:41 Jeffrey Neuman: But I agree that can be gamed 01:20:51 Warren Kumari: 100QPS for .nuclear-reactor is more scary than 10000QPS for .printer. This is 100% my subjective determination, and falls into the "I know it when I see it" category. Yes, this is not helpful... 01:21:41 Jothan Frakes: +1 warren good point 01:21:56 Jothan Frakes: CONGRATULATIONS on your blessing! 01:21:58 Justine Chew: Good luck Matt