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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I was specifically asking if you think CAT would get 3 or 4 points under the 
Registration Restriction component of scoring.   My sense is that CAT would

In terms of the 14 points,   CAT possibly wouldn't get those 14 points if they 
applied under the new process for .CAT,  but if they applied for .CATALAN they 
would get 14 or more.   

I think thats why the scoring is structured the way it is.   If a group 
representing the Catalan community applied for .CATALAN they would beat all 
other possible applicants,  but if that same group applied for .CAT (a more 
generic term) they might not beat all other applicants.

A problem you're noting is that if they apply for .CATALAN as community they 
might be saddled with registration restriction procedures that are too 
expensive for them to manage.  Thats what I'm trying to get a handle on.     
How costly are these procedures currently,   to say MUSEUM or CAT?


On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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