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

[Danny McPherson]

On 2020-04-30 15:28, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2020, at 14:14, Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2020-04-30 13:10, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> Why?  Where is the collision occurring - the same globally unique name 
>> in the same global RZM namespace is not a collision by their very own 
>> definition.
> 
> 
> That's a question that could have been raised between June 2014 and
> October 2015, when there was a community discussion group flagging the
> issues that were later studied by the PDP WG that started in 2016 and
> hasn't finished yet. The fact is that it was included both in the
> issues matrix output of the discussion group and in the 2016 WG
> charter, so this consolidated approach seem natural to a number of
> people, not only to the study 1 author.

Rubens,
I don't know what that means WRT my question and this report.

Can you answer my question on where the collision is occurring?  And 
even if not that one can you explain how we can resolve the error and 
inherent conflict between what some are calling "re-registration 
collisions" as in-scope when according to the definition just above they 
are not collisions, and even if they were they are not in-scope by 
according to that definition?


-danny