[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Contention outcomes

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Colleagues, sorry about the previous, least useful subject line ever.

Avri,

You wrote:

> I am sure this does not satisfy Eric's condition, but the fact that
> the supported applicant is more than likely doing a community string
> should help mitigate this in most cases.

Correct on both counts. Second, that Community Based application types
are likely to be no less prevalent in the supported applications then 
in the supported and unsupported applications, and first, providing for
waste avoidance, while a good thing, is insufficient to meet the goal
of inclusion, which was not so restricted.

> ... modifying the string, ... in the general arena of the AG ...

It is one of several process suggestions that have been made, and also
rejected by the evaluation process designers. However, here the proposal
is for a limited number of applications -- those (a) lacking any other
outcome dispositive property (and therefore certain to prevail over all
non-supported applications in the same contention set), and (b) those
qualified for support under the program recommended by the JAS WG.

Given the staff response to the unqualified proposal, I don't expect
that form to be implemented. I don't have expectations as to the staff
response to the qualified proposal.

Eric