As the member of this DG with the least skin in the game I have few strong views at this point on the when, what and how of any new gTLD round, but I am keenly interested in what has been learned from the experience of the past round, and on the impact of new gTLD rounds on the prospects for development among the poorer populations of the globe. We need to remember that there are two parts to lessons learned here. The first part has to do with lessons learned from how the first round was conducted. There are clearly tonnes of lessons to be learned there, relevant for how to do things better next time, many already listed as issues in this DG space. Some suggestions, of course, will advantage one player over another. and will be contested. The second part has to do with the results of the first round, with its broader impact on Internet stakeholders, structures and processes. For a quick new gTLD round much of that evidence will not be in and it will be hard for business, government and civil society stakeholders to have evidence-based positions around how a new gTLD round should unfold. Predictions about how a subsequent round would unfold are very speculative and sound like the pitches of the Canadian penny stock mining sector. Would businesses in the city of Fresno flock to .fresno or simply rely on search engines and apps? This uncertainty in itself does not rule out a new gTLD round. The speculative building of gambling casinos that frequently fail, are an accepted business game plan, blessed by government, and a failed gTLD is certainly less resource destructive than, for example, a failed New Jersey (U.S.) gambling casino. As an educator I hope we can separate out lessons learned around process from those involving strategy to best play one's self interest in the game. Also, we should remain aware that a broad and deep global competitive participation in the Internet at this level is preferred to a concentration of gTLD ownership. Sam L (Canada)