Jeff sent an email stating that all future applications for the .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL strings were already banned by the Board resolution. (This was inaccurate and had to be addressed in the attached September 6 email quoting the Board resolution.) Then Rubens sent a note to the list stating that in his opinion, there is no longer a dependency between the Name Collision Analysis Project and the policy being developed by this WG.

I wouldn't say "no longer" because I never believed in that. But the no-bid from JAS advisors from study 1 explained why much more eloquently than me, so I don't see how any reasonable analysis could still believe in such dependency.

This is inaccurate because Study 1 of the NCAP is proceeding and there is a half day meeting on that topic in Montreal on Friday November 1. These (very specific) comments from Leadership certainly required specific responses, especially since we will address name collision policy in the upcoming call. Many of the public comments simply state “Defer to the SSAC” so that’s important. The ALAC clarification on this point (from Justine Chew) says the following:

The public comments in every ICANN topic, not only in this one, are always biased with more disagreement than agreement. This is natural but doesn't represent that everything should be the other way around.

I can’t imagine why we would ask the WG to develop policy impacting Applicant Freedom of Expression without looking at the attached list of strings that would enjoy protected status prohibiting future applications by the proposed language. If these 2012 applications are outside the Charter as Rubens asserts, then they are definitely outside the scope of giving them preference by banning future applications for the same string. As Alex points out, “apply at your own risk.”

Name collisions in the CHM applications are outside the charter, but this is totally unrelated to subsequent procedures decision of what to allow to be applied for or not, which is on-topic for the WG.