One of Katim's additions could fit in more than one place on the mind map:

This clearly fits under the section about applicants from developing countries, but it also concerns auctions, which is a group of issues in the section about contention mechanisms. Double issues like this have come up very often in discussions about the New TLD program with applicants who identify themselves as a particular type of applicant (not only from developing countries but also communities, IDNs, .BRANDs, and others). I've noticed that the overlap is caused by two different approaches towards issue grouping. Many people group issues by the procedure involved (application processing, contention resolution, etc). However, other participants in the community approach discussions about a subsequent round from the perspective of their particular identity. They look for the groups of issues that most directly affect them. Our mind map mixes the two approaches. It groups issues both by identity and by procedure, which is a little confusing. I'm concerned that confusion in the presentation will lead to confusion in the discussions.

Trying to organize the issues under the GNSO Final Report principles also created inconsistencies. Issues about auctions are hard to find under the heading "Were strings effectively prevented from being confusingly similar...?" The Final Report principles don't have a clear structure, so anything organized around them will also lack structure. References to the GNSO Final Report principles (as a parenthetical at the end of the issue) should be sufficient.

I recommend that we group the issues primarily by the procedures that make up the New TLD program. The timeline of procedures creates a clear and consistent outline. We should supplement the issue groups by calling out the sub-issues that particular applicant types have raised (for example, Katim's suggestion about applicants from developing countries in TLD auctions). I think we would all benefit from easily recognizing which discussions during the PDP will be a priority for specific applicant types. I noticed that ICANN staff have structured their internal reviews based on the timeline of procedures. Following a similar outline will help us efficiently blend their issues and the results of their reviews with our work.

There are certainly issues that affect the New TLD program overall (rather than a specific procedure or sub-program). One group/section for these would not be too hard to find or to recognize which issues fit in it (for example, the Applicant Guidebook).

David