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

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 30 Apr 2020, at 20:32, Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-04-30 18:51, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> 
>> But it's kinda curious that all opinions I saw defending views such as
>> yours work for the same company which happens to be a large incumbent
>> registry.
> 
> Rubens,
> My argument stands on technical merit, not my employer.
> 
> That said, you agreed "they're more like a [leak] than a collision" about two emails ago and you certainly don't work for Verisign :-)  Even then you also conflated Active Directory traffic arriving unexpectedly somewhere it wasn't supposed to go (which likely is escaping its intended [non-RZM] namespace and most certainly not an artifact of "re-registrations" themselves).  The you added that "everybody started using that terminology so it's fruitless to question it at this point in time. We all know what it means." to which I'd reply apparently not -- - accuracy, precision, and nuances like these should matter to this WP and it's work products.

Whether leak or collision, the word in my POV applies both to what you agree (TLD delegations causing it) and to what you don't agree (re-registration of a domain). It wasn't me that started using collision for this issue, and I don't recall if it was ICANN Org or Verisign that first suggested such wording. So don't put words in my writing that weren't there.


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/20200430/26e1fb7a/signature-0001.asc>