#645+ Handling ICANN Strings in Hard Fork

(This carries over from and splits off #645)

Extending the claim period is a good and responsibile idea to put in place, +4 years, +10 years, +25 years, whatever the term is. The downside is that it might diminish the urgency to act which may have had some claim sooner vs defer, but the upside is that Handshake can be seen as a mature and trustable platform.

There are TLDs that should have been set aside as ICANN TLDs that either:
* went to auction and were acquired (ex: .music, .spa, hotels etc); or,
* were placed in the alexa list instead of the ICANN list (ex: .web etc)

There are also some TLDs (mostly .brand that opted to later not launch) which were in the ICANN root which have been released and could be available in Handshake (ex: .active, .blanco, .boots etc) (see: [ICANN gTLDs JSON Report](https://www.icann.org/resources/registries/gtlds/v2/gtlds.json), constantly updated)

It would be good to use this hard fork to address where some TLDs were missed and went to auction - we've discussed this and it seems a bit controversial but the mistakes that let some errors slip through should be fixed. It is problematic and it creates more difficulty in having conversations with large providers to describe that there is name collision now as opposed to it being something to address later for names that have auctioned (.music, .spa, hotels etc).

_Originally posted by @dnsguru in https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd/issues/645#issuecomment-945256375_

The conversation splits down the line of what to do about a few of the 2012 round ICANN strings that were not included in the bootstrap in Feb 2020 and later auctioned. This includes some Amazon TLDs, .music, .kids, .spa, .hotels and some others.

These force collision between the "ICANN root" versions and the handshake versions of the TLDs that were missed in the bootstrap and got auctioned on handshake and remain unclaimable by the TLD administrators on the ICANN side.

The collision _stuff_ is fueling disinterest in adoption and inclusion by larger institutional / incumbent DNS / Service Providers / Browsers that might otherwise be accellerating adoption of handshake.

The folks who won the auctions on the slipped names understandibly want to keep them.

The adoption challenge will remain thick and sticky until this gets sorted out, so the community needs to decide if the hobbled adoption is more important than the certainty of TLD ownership on this one.

There was a plugin solution for resolvers that was developed as a potential band-aid with the ambition of addressing this at the per-resolver preference level, but institutional large-scale providers seem disinterested in that solution as a bridge to the collisions issue.

It is a bit of a polarized issue. Move large adoption obstacles out of the path on the handful of names that probably should not have been allowed, or leave them in place?

Start by reviewing issue #645 and the linked ICANN gTLDs JSON Report, then trace how the February 2020 bootstrap represents ICANN strings. No source files, tests, or entry points are named; the issue is not complete until the community decides which missed strings the hard fork should address and defines the resulting protocol behavior.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.