<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div><div><div>Sam,</div></div></div><div><br></div><div>As there has been no response to your question, I will provide my perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>The language from Implementation Guideline F below would not appear to dictate the exact method of resolution. As you are aware, the decision to utilize auctions as the method of last resort to resolve string contention was arrived at through community consultation via numerous Applicant Guidebook versions, as well as Explanatory Memoranda specifically related to the resolution of string contention. If this language were to remain unchanged for subsequent New gTLD procedures, it would seem that once again, the exact method of resolution is not being prescribed.</div><div><br></div><div>I would like to note that within the Issues/Recommendations matrix, the topic of string contention resolution is touched on in relation to Recommendation 2. Assuming that topic were to carry forward to a future PDP, the working group could conceivably expand upon the existing policy language and/or the implementation guidelines to make the method of resolution more prescriptive. Hopefully this helpful.</div><div><br></div><div>Have a great weekend.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Contention for strings<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Question and clarification:<br><br>
In Column B this is offered as the process for handling contention for strings: <br><br><ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3">If there is contention for strings, applicants may:<o:p></o:p><ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="circle"><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l2 level2 lfo3">i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l2 level2 lfo3">ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will
be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and;<o:p></o:p> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l2 level2 lfo3">iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels.
</li></ul></li></ul><p>Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to ICANN auctions for strings in contention where there is no resolution within a pre-established time frame?<br></p>
Sam L. <br><br></div></div></span></body></html>