Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Contention outcomes

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just as matter of background, the 2004 round of
sponsored TLDs allowed applicants to enter
their preferred string with two alternatives.

String substitution is not a bad concept, although
it was not incorporated in the AGB. The real
threat to an applicant is, in my opinion, much
more likely to come from a Governmental
objection, since the last changes introduced
to the AGB to satisfy the GAC, essentially
give Governments "power of veto", beyond
any AGB compliance issues. This could also
affect supported applications in my understanding.

Whereas it is true that string substitution might 
afford opportunity for gaming, given the current
reading of the AGB it would seem fair that, if
the concept is incorporated, it should apply to
all applicants, supported or not.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Contention outcomes


> Avri,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > And yet, I did offer a method by which this recommendation could be
> > inserted into our recommendations.
> > To reiterate:
> Whether string substitution is conditionally permitted for supported
> appliations discovered to be in contention, involving a committee, or
> is unconditionally permitted, is an implementation detail.
>
> The policy question is whether substitution is part of support.
>
> While Krista offered her opinion that substitution allows gaming, the
> conditional-committee implemenation detail assumes her analysis is
> correct. I'm unconvinced, where the mechanism is available only as a
> form of support.
>
> Eric