[NCAP-Discuss] Draft final Study 1 report: "re-registered name collisions"

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 30 Apr 2020, at 14:04, Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:
> 
> Top post only.
> 
> I understand and remember that Matt.  What I'm saying is that that item technically does not align with the definition and what's considered in scope by the RFP.  Should the design group and work product here not point out that disconnect [error] before this is finalized?
> 
> Otherwise, can someone explain to me how re-registrations are in scope of that definition?


Not to argue about the study scope, to which Matt already answered, it's of note that in SubPro PDP, re-registrations were also in scope of name collisions, and were called in the WG charter as collisions in current gTLDs. So this is definitely not unprecedented.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200430/a8129e8d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200430/a8129e8d/signature.asc>