Thanks Steve,
I am not sure this was discussed ever:
A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions).
Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet?
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
Dear WG Members,
Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably:
This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/