I might not have explained myself well just now in the session (yesterday – apologies resending this now as it seems it was stuck). The 2 points I did want to make is that the current system promotes gaming by better resourced applicants in blocking potential competition whom may be less resourced: � 1. Defensive gaming concern � Say a well-resourced applicant is interested in “.eggplant” but wants to block another less well-resourced applicant who would also like to apply for “.eggplant” but would potentially be content to operate the less sought for “.aubergine”. � In such a case, the system as currently envisioned would encourage defensive blocking of “.aubergine” as a potential competitor. � � 2. Failing to achieve what the replacement string mechanism is intended to � In the case where 2 applicants both interested in “stringA” as a more appealing string and “stringB" as a less appealing but acceptable string, the replacement mechanism as currently envisioned would fail to have avoided the contention even if one of the applicants in fact were willing to move to their replacement string. � � These are observations of the deficiencies that may arise from the current implementation. Hope it makes sense. � Edmon � �