| * The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path were: [[.blog]], [[.box]], [[.business]], [[.casa]], [[.cisco]], [[.comcast]], [[.dev]], [[.family]], [[.free]], [[.google]], [[.iinet]], [[.mail]], [[.network]], [[.office]], [[.orange]], [[.philips]], [[.prod]], [[.sfr]], [[.site]], [[.taobao]], [[.taxi]], [[.web]], [[.work]], [[.world]], and [[.zip]]. | | * The 25 strings not eligible for the alternative path were: [[.blog]], [[.box]], [[.business]], [[.casa]], [[.cisco]], [[.comcast]], [[.dev]], [[.family]], [[.free]], [[.google]], [[.iinet]], [[.mail]], [[.network]], [[.office]], [[.orange]], [[.philips]], [[.prod]], [[.sfr]], [[.site]], [[.taobao]], [[.taxi]], [[.web]], [[.work]], [[.world]], and [[.zip]]. |
− | On 26 February 2014, ICANN posted the followup report it commissioned [[JAS Advisors]] to prepare in order to suggest a plan for risk mitigation of the name collision issue. The report, titled "Mitigating The Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions" | + | On 26 February 2014, ICANN posted the followup report it commissioned [[JAS Advisors]] to prepare in order to suggest a plan for risk mitigation of the name collision issue. It was posted for public comment for about a month and then will be decided on by the ICANN Board. The report, titled "Mitigating The Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions," makes a number of key recommendations for resolving the name collision issue for most applicants:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm Name Collision, 26 Feb 2014, ICANN.org] Retrieved 27 Feb 2014</ref> |