<html 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 name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear Sub Team Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 July. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording</i>. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Review of RySG Letter re RSP Program<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This was a letter we received from the Registry Service Provider Discussion Group (RSP Discussion Group) -- 09 July 2017<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Last year there was a discussion on communication with ICANN and some technical issues -- really on trying to make the process of changing a backend provider or signing contracts smooth. This subgroup was established to deal with those issues and also on dealing with ICANN staff on technical issues and criteria for backend service providers, among other things.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Reached out to PDP WG Chairs: They have their own work tracks and they will try to provide input by the end of September on the RSP Program, particularly in WT1. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This is a positive development in that the registries are working on this issue and that they want to contribute.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- PDP WG Chairs will send a letter back thanking them and saying that we are looking forward to receiving their input.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>a. Application Submission Period<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1.6.1 One of the overarching questions in CC1 focused on whether applications should be accepted during defined windows of time (also known as "rounds"). If the WG determines that a system of rounds is the right approach, is 3 months an appropriate length of time to accept applications? What considerations should be taken into account when determining the length of the application window?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 3 – Summary<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Continuous would be treated as FCFS and disadvantage some (GAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need to consider impact on staff -- time to evaluate apps (BC)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- More data needed prior to any rounds or FCFS to determine benefit or harm caused to Internet by further gTLD expansion (ALAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 4 – Excerpts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Support for rounds with sufficient advance notice: Jannic Skou/Nominet/BRG/GAC UK.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Process should occur regularly to provide predictability: Jannik skou/BRG/BC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Support for a continuous application system: Demys/RySG.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1.6.2 -- If we have a few next "rounds" followed by a continuous application process, how should the application submission period be handled in the lead-up rounds?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 5/6 -- Excerpts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Less concern with rounds or continuous process and more concern re: potential harm to Internet users by proliferation of gTLDs (ALAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Support for priority to first applications: Jannik Skou.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Support for establishing a predicatable timeline: BRG/RySG.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Process should reflect end-goal of continuous application window: RySG/Afilias/BRG.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1.6.3 -- Do you think the length of the submission period will impact Applicant Support and what factors do you think should be considered in determining an appropriate length of time?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 7 & 8 -- Excerpts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Application Support is a separate issue: Afilias.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Submission period must be predictable: Nominet/Jannik Skou/ALAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Education and awareness is key: BRG/RySG/Jannik Skou.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Question: The main point for us to consider is how long should the period be. Are we discussing rounds here -- or just an initial round followed by some other process? Response: There is general agreement with most of the community that the next application window should be in the form of a round. So, separate the discussion that the next window would be a round and then decide what to do after that. The first discussion is whether to do rounds or FCFS, but seems agreed that the next window will be rounds.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think the main point for us to consider here is HOW LONG should the period be<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: to receive applications<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: 3 month is fine<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>vanda scartezini: from here the msot relevant is advance infromation - last time was basically none in the south hemisphere.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: I would caution against the use of the term "pent up demand" as to date the only evidence of such is annecdotal at best and I have seen nothing to suggest it is widespread. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: +1 Jim<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: 3 months is fine by me<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, while it may be anecdotal, given it's more than 5 years since the 2012 application round, can we agree that there is or will be demand for new gTLDs?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>vanda scartezini: from the survey I did last year in this LAC region the answer is Yes Donna, we did not have good chance to enter last round<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: there will be people who appply for sure. But we have no idea how many. Number like 25k application are thrown around with no factual bassis behind those numbers. It's like 2012 all over again where we just dont know how many there will be.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>b. Application Queuing<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1.7.1 -- Do you agree that a process similar to the prioritization draw should be used in the future? If rounds are not used, would this method still be appropriate? Would a prioritization draw, or similar method, work for a continuous application period or would it be better to base processing/evaluation on order of receipt?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 9/10/11/12 – Excerpts and Themes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Excerpts:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In support of the prioritization draw: Nominet/GAC/RySG/Jannik Skou.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- John Poole opposes prioritization draw.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Nominet and RySG emphasized the importance of predictability.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Themes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Prioritization aspects in developing recommendations but without limiting the implementation to a draw (for instance, the legal environment won't allow for a repeated 'lottery' type of license.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Prioritization draws: focused on the order applications are managed not the timing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Mechanism will rely on randomization.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Laws of California.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Mechanism will be operationally optimized.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1.7.2 -- Should certain subgroups of applicants/application types be prioritized over others?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Slide 13/14/15 -- Excerpts<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In support of prioritization of specific application types: Jannik Skou/Nominet/ALAC/Demys/GAC UK.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Afilias and RySG and John Poole do not favor prioritization of specific application types.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- BRG suggested grouping applications by common characteristics.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question: When we use "prioritization draw" does that include preference for IDNs? Response: That will come up in the discussion of the mechanism.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Note that we did some informal outreach to the ICANN Legal Team as to whether a raffle could be conducted for subsequent procedures. The answer was "it depends" since they would have to do some research. The language should allow some flexibility to accommodate the current legal environment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- There were a number of comments from Nominet and others that really want predictability. Even if we dont' prescribe the mechanism, whatever it is should be announced prior to the opening up of the first window of the next round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Some people are saying we may have thousands of applications -- if we do is it better to prioritize some over others, or not? One may depend on the other. Not sure if priority should play in going forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In 2012 I think there was an option for the applicant not to participate in the draw, so they would go after. One of the things we should think about is if we want an option for an applicant to opt out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Some of the things brought up during Work Track calls were assigning numbers during the application process -- other issues from what we are discussing here. Didn't say that a raffle couldn't be done, but that circumstances may have changes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: @Rubens - there were legal reasons for paying separately for the draw <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: @Kurt - I believe it needs to go to a separe pot, but looking forward ICANN could collect it at application time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Didnt we get feedback from ICANN on whether they are able to do a lottery again<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: I think that is a decision to be made in the TLD Types discussion... <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: one assumes that the lottery would be done again in California ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: @Jeff, yes, I recall something from staff... mainly that we're not supposed to call it a lottery (legal reasons) They may be able to do something similiar if I recall correctly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: To get the terminology straight: (1) the prioitization draw was a "raffle" and (2) ICANN did not conduct a lottery<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: We could win priority numbers using buzzword bingo @ ICANN Public Forum. I want all my cards with "Swenglish". <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Even if possible to use, it could be either easy or cumbersome. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: less prescriptive mean digital archery again :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Steve, that seems to be a rather important consideration.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: so will there be a prioritisation this time. So will IDNs still get priority this time ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: Maybe this group could ask ICANN for formal advice on the draw issue and whether it can be legally repeated - with a one month or so delivery. That way, we would know our options. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: IDNs have quit a larger challenge to overcome than time-to-market. Their priority didn't bring them much return. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: (quite a)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: Agreed Rubens<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan 2: I would note, the comments I made earlier wouldn't preclude the WG from saying the mechanism SHOULD be a priotitization draw, in the form of a raffle, similar to the 2012 round. That makes it very clear what the WG wants, but at least allows for some level of adjustment if the mechanism is not legally feasibile. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: If we get 25,000 applications, we will need a way to batch the applications for processing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Kurt Pritz: @ Steve: if a draw is not legally feasible, we don't want to spend time discussing it. We should be able to understand if the law has changed since the last round. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Trang, what do you mean by 'batch'? Do you mean by similar type of application or just in batches of 100 or 200<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I do not believe there have been any changes to the lottery laws of california in over 30 years<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: 25,000 applications could be 25,000 applicants to 1 TLD each or 25 applicants of 1,000 TLDs. Those two scenarios would need very different resources. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Different cases, but not statutory<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: @Donna, some considerations if we get 25,000 applications include whether the application comment should be extended to allow the community more time to review the large number of applications and provide comment, whether the objection submission window should be extended, evaluation of applications would be extended, or whether the 25,000 applications would be batched in some form into smaller groups for processing.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>