Hello everyone I have taken Paul’s request to share some ideas about "Liz’s flat application structure is an interesting idea. I’d like to hear more about it from her and others on the list”. I have been grappling with how we do two things. 1. Improve on the implementation of the 2012 AGB because it remains a very poor idea to repeat the implementation of 2007 policy with the AGB mistakes of the past, knowing those mistakes and continuing with them because we can’t think of ways to do things better and 2. Integrating the ideas we have come up with in practical and transparent ways for a better application and evaluation process. Taking the “intended use” thread as an example. If we agree that there is no consensus on maintaining a policy focus and recommendation on “intended use”, then it is logical that the concept of “intended use” is removed from all aspects of the application process, evaluation and implementation including any grounds for objection. For example, it would not be a useful tool in the motivation for letters of support and even less so for letters of non-objection as it is too loose and subjective a concept. Taking a “geographical use" as another example. There appears little agreement amongst us about the treatment of potential new TLDs that may have connotations of geographic “use”. We have had countless examples of why that is the case. That doesn’t mean than an applicant couldn’t describe intended use and, if relevant, geographic focus in their application but they wouldn’t be measured against the strength of those arguments in any part of the process because there is no consensus policy recommendation to support it. In both cases, we can explain that we haven't come up with consensus policy because of x, y or z. For example, the wrinkles with “intended use" are it is a future intention that an applicant may not be held to; it may change as the business grows and matures and restricting a business to its intended use could mean the failure of the business; it is a further compliance burden and we have multiple examples of intended use changing in both the ccTLD and gTLD world so we can’t argue that it wouldn’t be “allowed” at some point in the future. It isn’t OK just to say “we don’t agree with each other and there is no consensus”…we have to explain why. And then to the flat application and evaluation structure. If we were to create a matrix (and I am sure staff can help here) of where there is consensus, we can then map that to what would be allowable or positively disallowed (two letter codes and so on). We then track each one of those agreed policy recommendations through an application/evaluation/objection/implementation filter. Where there is consensus on a policy recommendation it rapidly becomes clear that there may be very few limitations on what can be applied for. That means a much simplified, flatter application process which is more easily understood by potential applicants, any independent evaluators, potential registrants and, at some point in the far distant future, ICANN registry contract compliance. It is quicker, cheaper and simpler for applicants and is subject to far fewer challenges, objections and procedural hold ups. As Justine pointed out, this thread might become a discussion of the consequences of consensus/non-consensus as we have to turn our minds to the linkages between the two. Looking forward very much to hearing other people’s views. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.