Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] GAC Communique on JAS

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

It is actually an open question if the .cat application would get 
14/16 under the current guidelines.
You are correct that where the applicant thinks that their string will 
not be in a contention set, and does not adopt a restrictive 
registration policy, assuming their belief is correct and the 
application is not eliminated through auction, it may not have adopted 
binding restrictions on its registration policy.
However, if the applicant is willing to risk the application fee with 
no benefit from the application being self-identified as 
community-based, and with only future cost (in the form of revenues 
not received due to a restrictive registration policy) from 
identifying the application as community-based, a standard application 
from the same applicant making the same cost-benefit calculations is 
equally likely.
So the net is that we may see no needs-qualified community-based 
applications, except those which have reduced viability due to the 
adoption of restrictive registration policies contained in the 
application, and difficult to modify subsequently.
Looking at the first of your three points, as Amadeu has pointed out, 
the set of values present in scoring criterion 3 overlap, with some 
degree of incoherence. This should be fixed before we engage the 13 or 
14 question. As to the second, the possibility of two community based 
applicants and the consequences, which range from none, if only one 
application meets the current criteria, to blocking all, if two or 
more applications meets the current criteria, is a hypothetical that 
should not have unintended adverse consequences where only one 
application meets the current criteria. A high score under a poorly 
designed scoring system protects all communities by eliminating their 
applications, which is not the usual form of protection sought. The 
same observation applies to low scores and the vulnerability of 
community applications. A multi-application hypothetical should not 
have adverse consequences where there is only one application.

Eric