Dear friends. Wonderful debate. I have cut and past in a document your comments, just took off the out of context regarding new gTLDs and will be psoted to the CCWG page. Thank you for all your comments . Indeed some comments deserve also to enlighten other working groups as those related to new gTLDs. Kind regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! On 5/15/17, 4:14 PM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs@theworld.com" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs@theworld.com> wrote: It's not clear whether ICANN's financial interests would be improved by a much higher gTLD application few. There likely would have been many fewer applications. We can only guess. I suppose one could argue that their "margin" per new gTLD would have improved but that's a relative observation. (note: "beauty contest" is a term of art in economics and game theory and I believe that's what's being referred to here, look it up in wikipedia if you are unfamiliar.) My feeling is a much higher application fee would have avoided so many seemingly frivolous gTLDs and ensured only those with greater financial stability and commitment, and thus likelihood of success. And of course simplified the interface with registries. Thus avoiding any need for a beauty contest round towards the end. This may seem like Monday morning quarterbacking (pick your favorite sport :-)) but it's worthwhile considering as another round of new gTLDs proceeds, and in terms of the stability and security of this new crop of gTLDs forward.