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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

I agree to differ with you on the question
of the GAC. If they object to a string
from a supported applicant, it is true
there is no contention, the application
is dead. It would seem logical that, if
a supported applicant has gone through
all the effort to present an application,
and for reasons not contemplated in
the provisions of the DAG, the GAC or
any of it's members presents an
objection that knocks it off the table,
then a substitute string might well be
allowed and indeed be justified.

Sorry if I digress, having joined this
discussion later in the process.

I am not advocating this form of support
NOT be offered.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Contention outcomes


> 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