Hi. Before our call today, I would like to introduce both a problem statement and a possible solution. Problem: Applicants are not bound to follow the business and operational model described in the application. Possible objectors might use the application to decide whether to object or not, but at a later time what ends up happening might generate concerns that previously known would trigger an objection. Same happens for applicant itself: applicant A might not generate concerns, but later registry A can transition the TLD to registry X that is a cause of concern. Possible solution: Except for LRO, all objections (LPI, Community, String Confusion) would be on the string, not on the application. So if a string can trigger concern depending on how it's handled, that can be addressed by getting PICs as the result of winning the objection. Full extinction of all applications could still be an ask, but that would require a much higher threshold to be granted as remedy. Added benefits: If a string is heavily disputed, that would make less costly for objectors, that would pay 1 fee instead of multiple, and for defendants, that will share the panel/admin fee among all applicants. The objection result could be persistent for further procedures, saving communities from repeatedly defending themselves This would greatly diminish the interest in gaming the process from other applicants to the same string, although the possibility for gaming from applicants to different string addressing the same markets could still occur. Rubens