Hi all, in general I think the suggested wording is ok. The bullet points in 3.5 will serve the purpose that applicants don't just try to activate all allocatable variants, but will have to think about for each variant, why they need it and if it's really necessary. However, I also copy Dennis' reservation, especially regarding 3.5.4. It will be very difficult to put an objective mark (0/1) to the answers. How should the evaluators decide whether the mentioned mitigation suffices. For example, if the applicant says that they will ensure that the cross-TLD domain variants will be handled "correctly" (i.e., only the same entity will be able to apply for variants), is that already sufficient? If yes, then we could also leave out 3.5.4, because the above will already be required by our developed policy and every registry MUST adhere to it. If it's not sufficient, what else is needed? Does the registry need to look at the content of each and every domain? That certainly is not viable. Cheers, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp