Step by Step is an alternative to consider

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I take this opportunity to remind Staff that CORE and some linguistic 
and cultural, and municipal, and applications now called "geo names", 
that is:
	- an application for Native American, Aboriginal & Indigenous use, of 
type "community-based",
        - an application by the City of Barcelona, also "community-based"
        - an application by the City of Paris, also "community-based"
	- an application by the Provincial Government of Quebec, also 
"community-based"
	- an application for Welsh linguistic and cultural use, also 
"community-based"
	-  an application for Basque linguistic and cultural use, also 
"community-based"
	- an application for Galacian linguistic and cultural use, also 
"community-based"
	- an application for Breton linguistic and cultural use, also 
"community-based"
        - an application for the City of Berlin,
        - an application for the City of Hamburg,
        - an application for the City of Cologne,
        - an application for Latin America,
        - and ECO e.V.
and joined by
        - an application by the Scotish Authority,
        - an application for Africa,
proposed a plan to the Board, and copied Staff, at Sydney.

The highlights of what we suggest is that the application window be 
opened in the proximal future, without affecting its eventual closure 
date, with no accommodation made for lower fee, or applications 
targeted by parties with standing through objection, or applications 
which sought evaluation services for which ICANN is not currently 
(with the initial evaluation process offset from "now" a given) prepared.
This could lead to one or more applications being completely evaluated 
90 to 120 days after SbS began, and possibly before general 
availability of the most complex evaluation sub-process, which we 
understand Staff has not yet fully defined, nor implemented.
It is a cause for concern that a single registrar could propose a 
100,000 unit exception from the registry registrar separation rule 
that has defined the industry since VGRS sold off NetSol, and get that 
into DAGv2 despite significant Constituency-based opposition.
I hope that Staff will consider the interests of the above linguistic 
and cultural institutons, sub-national governments, municipal 
governments, and private parties with statements of non-objection by 
the respective governments, as it has the proposal of a single registrar.
As always, in an individual capacity, though I'm employed by CORE 
which has an interest in the subject matter.
Eric Brunner-Williams