I will check on the phone number

Valpurgis in Sweden!

excuse tardinees

A really big celebration for the Swedish people!

Also here in Germany - but not this year ….

May Day, Beltane or mid Solstice: Equinox in either hemisphere - a change of seasons regardless

Katrin - I heard they cancelled Oktoberfest???

Yup, that is really bad for Munic

We had planned bicycling in Germany this summer, but Katrin, I really fear that this holiday has to be postponed to 2021

OTCO -> OCTO

@Annebeth: Not very likely that other than in-Country tourism will be allowed.

Just to note that .corp, .home and .mail are part of the board questions to SSAC, but they are not in scope for the SubPro PDP WG.

I am unable to identify the name for the phone number ending in 412. The area code is from Columbus, Ohio, does this sound familiar to anyone?

@Andrea - we did invite members from the NCAP, so I am wondering if it someone from the NCAP

Okay, thank you!

@Andrea: does the phone number end in 5412?

@Matt, I can only see the area code of 614 and the last 3 numbers of 412

It's almost certainly Jeff Schmidt.

Okay, thank you so much!

There is a special and more detailed SOI for the NCAP Discussion Group. Not too difficult - but questions are more specific.

Is there a tool where I can check my current 2nd round application strings for potential collision?

Alexander, while there is no such a tool yet or and it might never be, the list of undelegated TLDs with most queries is published by ICANN L-Root operations.

Those with most queries might not be the only collision issues, but they are strong candidates.

@Alexander and Rubens - it would be highly desirable to develop such a tool.

http://stats.dns.icann.org/ is the ICANN site I mentioned. The queries take long to render so one needs patience.

Hi Rubens. Would be cool to drop a string online, and get an "indication". Most strings are probably uncritical. Those who have a potential to be impcated should be very rare. But it would be nice to get an indication.

All - Karen is the contractor hired by OCTO to do Study 1

Thx for the clarification @Jeff

Rubens: Once you go to http://stats.dns.icann.org/- what then? Looks like SARS-CoV-2 curves for South Korea.

The strings that looking that appear at today's traffic are: local, home, . , lan, dhcp, corp, zghjccbob3n0, localdomain, intra, localhost, invalid, gateway, lan1, wlan_ap, dlinkrouter, getdhcpresultsforcurrentconfig, dom, rac2v1a, mygateway, grp, tootling, belkin, pvt, workgroup, airdream, station, novalocal, intranet, 1

Shame about tootling

tootling was totolink after being auto-corrected.

It is totolink that appears in queries to the root

Thought it was Tooting Bec.

Thanks Rubens

QUESTION - To Jim - Will Study 2 proceed if not funded by ICANN?

@anne - yes

SSAC, through NCAP, has a responsibility to answer the Board’s questions

Note that the contractor suggested changing study 2 to look at different angles, not to be done. She did though suggested to scrap study 3 altogether.

(not to not be done)

This has been a most useful briefing Thank You all from NCAP, OCTO et.al. :-)

Thanks to Jim and Matt.

Link to document on screen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

Page 91

Thanks Jim and Matt - very helpful and appreciate your time and information

It surely reflects the WT4 output, and the public comments were split, even from within a single stakeholder group.

why would they not be delegated Anne? 1200 odd were delegated last round using the "old mechanism" and it worked fine

This is also status quo, and there is clearly no consensus to defer to anything.

All public comments analysis finished.

Is this an instance where there might be a minority statement?

Correct @Rubens it does

and Anne Yes there was PC's that raised this BUT the analysis WT DID finish it's work

All of the report can have minority statements.

There was follow-up after Work Track 4 in Subgroup B and Subgroup B processed Public comment We did not actually finish that work in subgroup B

it was noted that the ALAC and GAC held this view so AC's as well as some others

The analysis DID have to complete we then took it to plenarry

If that is Leadership's conclusion - then Minority Statement is definitely appropriate as Jim Predergast points out.

Overall, this guidance reflects what everyone (applicants, SSAC, ICANN Org) wants, but its feasibility is to be seen.

Makes good sense Jim

Indeed

ad Yes @Anne cooperation is key here

Expertise on this doesn't reside only within SSAC. ICANN Org, both in Technical Services and in OCTO divisions, also has expertise, there is expertise in the DNS operators community, in contractors ICANN might procure etc.

How long do we expect it will take until those rules are developed?

+1 Rubens

This decade?

And why haven't we started in summer 2012 with that?

Very important for "dovetailing" to occur between the NCAP work and the implementation work related to drafting of AGB etc - hopefully all recommendations come together in time to launch with definitive collision string testing.

@Jim Galvin, @Matt Larson, might there be some sort of recommendation that will accompany the Final Study 1 Report to the ICANN Board that is expected from SSAC, OCTO and/or even NCAP DG?

Alexander, the first call to action on this is from 2009:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090618_most_popular_invalid_tlds_should_be_reserved/

@justine - what recommendation are you looking for?

something related to the final work product, then no

I'm not laying money on it but tend to agree with Jeff's crystal ball. Implementation will take time.

The Board passed the Resolutions to require the work in 2017 I think. Matt - can you confirm?

Optimism is important of course :-)

the only “recommendation” that will be there is an assessment of whether or not to move forward with other study work.

Thanks Jeff - just trying to answer Alexander's question.

There is no optimism in information security, never. It can't be. ;-)

right Jeff

@Jim Galvin, that's what I was looking for, thanks.

Not only Jim, Karen also wrote in study 1 that she doesn't think that as feasible.

perhaps JeffN.

since I don’t know exactly what the criteria will be it’s rather difficult to say

Cure worse then sickness. All we need is a set of rules how to compile such list. How difficuilt is that? How did we do it in 2012?

In 2012 there was no such list, each string was evaluated on its merits by the contractors.

Contractors will have used lists as well, no?

Cure x sickness is not the trade-off here, since the benefits go to a group and the issues go to a different group.

yed

yes

Sure you can send to me

Thanks @Matt very interesting data and observations indeed!

Need to leave now. Good discussion.

Thanks Jeff - for Action items - can we please note a Minority Statement as to this Name Collision section?

The whole section actually

@Anne, technically, minority statements would be submitted after the formal consensus call. The request for minority statements would apply to everything in the report of course, not just this section.

The board decision to approve the 2012 name collision framework also conflicts with SSAC advice, and it happened anyways.

The reference to Study 1 is from the version circulated by Jeff this week, which staff understands it the most recent draft — but in any case it is noted that the final version of this report will reference the final version of Study 1.

Draft final means they are candidate to be final.

Happy to do so. Comments are still open to Study 1 until Wednesday next week in NCAP.

The language is based on the language of the final report, by which time the final study will have been published.

The paragraph is a quote. We can only change if it changes.

study is done. report isn’t final

+1 Elaine

This language only appeared in the most recent version of the Study 1 report because that section of the report was not completed until now.

+1 Greg

It’s also not really the NCAP’s study/report.

It's worth pointing out that the Study 1 is output of the org. It was written in cooperation with the NCAP Discussion Group, but the org is responding to a request from the Board to produce the Study 1 report.

Thanks Matt

We should make that change

These are not the conclusions of NCAP. They are the conclusions of the contractor.

Matt, do you have language changes to suggest to better reflect that ?

No

+1 Greg and Matt, it's more a report by a contractor engaged by OCTO.

Yes

But not written in isolation but in cooperation with the NCAP DG. Not sure the best way to word that.

We don’t have a crystal ball. So lets not predict the future.

I said that already, by the contractor is not suggesting to not do study 2, but to do it differently.

Rubens that’s not what the quote says.

Unfortunately.

No objection but add the fact that the Board has asked questions that the SSAC must answer and did so by Board Resolutions.

The footnote will point to the whole report, so the full opinion of the contractor will also be linked.

Sorry all, i need to drop.

Sorry, have to go.

It might also help to preface the text with "As at <date>"

Thanks Kem very clear

Justine, that would apply if the highlighted text was not going to be changed. But it will changed to its final version, regardless of what it might contain.

THANKS everyone this has been *Excellent* IMO... Bye for Now!

@Rubens, 'for now' purposes.

Thank you Jeff et al

Thanks Team

Ciao