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

[Rubens Kuhl]

>> 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?

They are both the same to me, as making traffic to go to unexpected places. If someone gets one's Active Directory traffic that it shouldn't get, whether this happened due to a TLD delegation or due to domain expiration and reregistration, it's the same phenomenon.

Note that I am not a fan of using the word collision to characterise it, since it's more like a leak than a collision, but everybody started using that terminology so it's fruitless to question it at this point in time. We all know what it means.


Rubens


-------------- 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/d0952b1b/signature.asc>