<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=Windows-1252">
<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;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Team:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I have mentioned this before, but I would like to present this is a recommended Recommendation rather than just an offhand comment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">During the 2012 round, there were several evaluation types that evaluated both the string and the applying entity:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Background Screening<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* String Similarity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Geographic Names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Technical/Operational<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Financial<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Registry Services<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* DNS Stability<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">These are all described in the 2012 AGB:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Importantly, these evaluation types had standardized approaches to applicant interactions (Clarifying Questions), appeals (Extended Evaluation), and were sequenced in a way that took into consideration contention
sets, dispute resolution, fee refunds, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I would ask that the NCAP Recommend that whatever collisions review process we develop (TRT) be implemented as another evaluation type as to take advantage of the existing processes and procedures as opposed
to inventing an entirely new evaluation procedure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Arguably, the collisions procedures could be incorporated as an item into the existing String Reviews as it is really no different than the other 2012 types:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* String similarity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Reserved names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* DNS stability<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">* Geographic names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">See AGB 2.2.1 (“String Reviews”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Look forward to the discussion, thx,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>