<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Philip, Steve,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I agree, Philip. – the BRG member Round 1 applicant makes a valid suggestion . There is also very valid case for a complete rewrite / templates on the financial evaluation for .brands or indeed a .generic .city.etc The one size fits all can work for the technical evaluation , but certainly not on the financial evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The whole issue surrounding the COI / LOC ( Q50) is/was a complete nonsense. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Steve , you might be aware that I was involved in the financial evaluation processes / model( through Mike Salazar). I would be more than happy to discuss further in BA. Which section would / could this be added to ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Phil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Phil Buckingham<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>CEO, Dot Advice Limited<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>philip@brandregistrygroup.org<br><b>Sent:</b> 01 June 2015 11:46<br><b>To:</b> Subsequent Rounds ICANN<br><b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Steve, Jeff, Bret,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just .brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group 1, around the bullet "<i>Different TLD Types</i>? Feel free to turn the text into the style of the Charter.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Philip Sheppard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Director General<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Brand Registry Group<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><a href="http://www.brandregistrygroup.org">www.brandregistrygroup.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>----------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>Application by a previous applicant</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand) gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial, technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO information.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>