Hi all,

I tried to post the following comments last week, but apparently they did not appear on the list. After conferring with Julie, I am trying again:

I was unable to join the 26 November meeting; however, I would like to express my support for three of the ideas raised in the November 21 meeting in regard to the CCTRT recommendation to provide incentives or remove disincentives for new gTLDs to operate as verified TLDs.

• ICANN’s fees should be lowered for verified TLDs
• In the case of string contention, applications for verified TLDs should get priority.
• In the event that an applied-for string is similar to an existing verified TLD, and the applied-for string does not have the same or similar safeguards as the verified TLD, this would confuse and could harm end users. As such, it should be adequate grounds to file a formal objection.

To preventing gaming, “verified TLD” could be defined in a specification within the RA.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Gertrude “Gg” Levine

Digital Health Manager

National Association of Boards of Pharmacy

847/391-4497