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

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Tony,

Thank you for the reminder, I don't recall if we actually exercised
the second string option in 2004 for PuntCat's application, I think
it was just "cat".

> String substitution is not a bad concept, although it was not
> incorporated in the AGB.

The objection I recall staff raising to applications for two or more
strings was that of scale.

The suggestion I've made, if available only as a form of support,
is certain to affect a subset of the total applications, the concern
I recall staff making, and as Avri and Evan have pointed out or I've
inferred, affecting only a subset of supported applications, those
which do not possess a dispositive right under the DAG to eliminate
all other applications in the contention set.

> The real threat to an applicant is, in my opinion, much more likely
> to come from a Governmental objection ...

As the right of objection is independent of the existence of contention
sets and the allocation mechanisms (note the plural) currently in the
DAG, I don't share your view, though I appreciate you want to draw
attention to the GAC and that the effect is larger than just supported
applications.

> 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. 

Am I correct in reading this as a preference that string substitution upon
contention certain to result in the failure of a supported application
NOT be offered as a form of support?

Eric