[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Contention outcomes

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Thaks for changing the subject.  I must admit, I had not even noticed.

On 11 Aug 2011, at 23:53, ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> ... 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.

And yet, I did offer a method by which this recommendation could be inserted 
into our recommendations.
To reiterate:

After the contending strings, when one is support qualified candidate (SQC), 
are given the opportunity to arbitration by the SARP, the 
SQC or Regular Applicant are given the opportunity to change to a string that 
is a non confusingly similar variant of the original string.

The condition is that making an change subject to a committee that included 
Master ICANN Gamers of Repute should minimize gaming.

> 
> 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.

I continue to recommend that we avoid crystal ball gazing as a motivator.  If 
we can find a proposal that we can find at least rough or near consensus on we 
should put it forward and get the staff feedback on its implementability.

a.