<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Dear All,<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""> </font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda.<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Thanks, Robin</font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">__________________________</font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""> </font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">1.Welcome & Review of Agenda<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">2. Updates to SOI<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">3. Plenary Update<o:p class=""></o:p></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">4. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached)</font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 (see attached)</span></font></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">6. AOB</font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><b class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><u class="">Discussion on GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice in New GTLD program</u></font></b></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;" class=""><div class="page" title="Page 3"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.1.10</b> - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? </font></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings?</font></span></p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div><div class="page" title="Page 4"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.1.11</b> - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? </font></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? </font></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px;" class="">How can timelines be made more precise?</span></p><div class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><b class=""><u style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Discussion on String Similarity</font></u></b></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? "}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.1</b> - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? </font></span></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? "}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? </font></span></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? "}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way?</font></span></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, Arial;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? If so, do you have suggested changes to the policy recommendations or implementation that may lead to improvement? For instance, should the standard of string confusion that the evaluation panel used be updated or refined in any way? "}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""> </span></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.2</b> - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en" class="">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en</a>)?
</font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.3</b> - The WG and the wider community have raised concerns specifically related to singles and plurals of the same word. </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Do you have suggestions on how to develop guidance on singles and plurals that will lead to predictable outcomes? </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Would providing for more predictability of outcomes unfairly prejudice the rights of applicants or others? </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.4</b> - Do you believe that there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for a change of applied-for TLD when it is determined to be in contention with one or more other strings? </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">If so, do you have suggestions on a workable mechanism?
</font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.5</b> - Do you feel that the contention resolution mechanisms from the 2012 round (i.e., CPE and last- resort auctions) met the needs of the community in a sufficient manner? Please explain. </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class=""><b class="">3.4.6</b> – Do you believe that private auctions (i.e., NOT the auctions of last resort provided by ICANN) resulted in any harm? </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Could they lead to speculative applications seeking to participate in a private auction in future application processes? </font></span></div><div class=""><span data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" style="font-size: 14px;" class=""><font face="Arial" class="">Should they be allowed or otherwise restricted in the future? </font></span></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, Arial;" data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"3.4.2 - Should the approach for string similarity in gTLDs be harmonized with the way in which they are handled in ccTLDs (ccNSO IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is described here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en)?
"}" data-sheets-userformat="{"2":14718,"4":[null,2,15197926],"5":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"6":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"7":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"8":{"1":[{"1":2,"2":0,"5":[null,2,0]},{"1":0,"2":0,"3":3},{"1":1,"2":0,"4":1}]},"9":0,"11":4,"14":[null,2,0],"15":"Calibri","16":12}" class=""><br class=""></span></div><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;" class=""><br class=""></p><p style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;" class=""></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>