Philip, Steve, I agree, Philip. – the BRG member Round 1 applicant makes a valid suggestion . There is also very valid case for a complete rewrite / templates on the financial evaluation for .brands or indeed a .generic .city.etc The one size fits all can work for the technical evaluation , but certainly not on the financial evaluation. The whole issue surrounding the COI / LOC ( Q50) is/was a complete nonsense. Steve , you might be aware that I was involved in the financial evaluation processes / model( through Mike Salazar). I would be more than happy to discuss further in BA. Which section would / could this be added to ? Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip@brandregistrygroup.org Sent: 01 June 2015 11:46 To: Subsequent Rounds ICANN Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant Steve, Jeff, Bret, a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter. Philip Sheppard Director General Brand Registry Group www.brandregistrygroup.org ---------------------------- Application by a previous applicant In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.