<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 13 Jul 2020, at 17:27, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I’m quite overwhelmed too Elaine, certainly a lot of words.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">No surprise that I concur with much of the content in Paul’s email below.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I appreciate the time and thought Jim has put into his proposal and the spirit of compromise in which it has been provided. I recall that you stated on a call recently that you could think of ’10 ways to game’ a proposal that was under discussion. I don’t recall the specifics but I remember your statement. I think if a few of us put our collective heads together we could think of 10 ways to game Jim’s proposal as well.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I support Paul’s application terms and conditions as the preferred manner in which to address the issue of contention resolution, and as the basis for the policy recommendation. I also think Paul’s point about data collection for subsequent application rounds is also important moving forward. We’ve had many discussions about the mal-intent or frivolity from last round and, in my opinion, the evidence to substantiate this claim is at best anecdotal.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class="">1. The applicant has a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded. The “examiners” would be able to issue additional questions if it appears that the business plan is rudimentary or if there is evidence that the applicant does not really have the needed intent. Applicants would be able to supplement the record to assure “examiners.”<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class="">2. The application is not being submitted solely for the purpose of being able to participate in private auctions. <o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class="">So, how would these terms be policed?<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class="">A. If an applicant does not actually launch the registry if awarded or sells it in the aftermarket within 2 years of delegation, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption of non-intent for that applicant.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class="">B. If an applicant only “sells” applications in private auctions and does not actually proceed with any to contracting, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the new gTLD program to speculate on registries.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>This method of policing has one issue we are facing with our drop auctions(~200 a month): it allows for one party to get one bite at gaming the system. Even a one-time event is profitable, so what happens is that new gamers come into the system while the old ones are blocked, making a constant flow of gaming. In our case preventing would create too much friction, but the new gTLD application system is already not an instant buy system, so something more robust would be welcome. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>