Chris, Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if that could create greater consensus within the community. The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in connection with the string submission period is that under the current guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and COMPLETE the entire applications four months after the start of the communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed. I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one in my opinion. In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal: ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the former scenario. Thanks for the constructive feedback. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse Michael, Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a difficult problem. I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign to two. I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much attention to it. In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN meetings. This is the purpose of the communications plan. In this present environment we expect about 500 applications. However, with a successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the story. I think we will see human 'herd mentality' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality and tens of thousands of applications. The draft communications plan is posted here http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en. pdf Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment. Best regards Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ยช Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris@andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27 Para: bc-GNSO@icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse Hello All, For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an article attempting to bridge this gap, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. Any constructive feedback would be welcomed. Best regards, Michael