Anne,

During the call that Susan is referring to Susan volunteered to draft some language to flesh out her proposal.  And although it did not seem to have a huge amount of support on that call, she was asked to send the proposal around to the list to see if it has traction. 

As you have pointed out, decisions are not generally made with just one phone call.  Discussions can and should happen on the mailing list.  Susan has responded with her proposal on the list and we can see which version has support.  The options are:

1. Prohibit Applications for strings where the applications are still pending (for whatever reason) – As per Susan’s proposal; or
2. Allow applications in for those strings, but do not process them any further than the reveal stage, unless and/or until the applications from the previous round that match those strings have had their final disposition. 

Susan – sorry for the confusion but based on Jeff’s request, I had understood you were “fleshing out” the part that the WG might be able to agree on – which was that prior round applications should be “completed” prior to subsequent round applications for the same string being considered.    I’m pretty sure the recording will confirm this.

Anne

From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

Anne, This is based on the comments that my company and INTA had made. I was asked on the call, including by you, to flesh this out so that the group could see what such a proposal would look like, and whether it would garner sufficient support. Here it is.