Alexander,

The only option that the group has been seriously considering in your scenario is closest to A.  Remember that there is a a string similarity check during the initial evaluation phase.  If during that check a newly applied for string is found to be similar to either an existing delegated TLD, or a string which is still pending from a previous round, then in the case of the former the application will not proceed, and in the latter, it will be on hold until the final disposition of the similar string in the previous round.

 

So I think this is similar to what you were saying below.  Let me know if I am misunderstanding.

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Date: 9/4/19 22:10 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 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,

 

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.