> By contrast, in the TLD names case, if one >applies for a name in the root and doesn't get it, there is no >practical alternative (other than alternate roots, of course) -- >if one thinks one wants or needs a name and the application is >rejected, one has nothing and no alternatives other than the try >to get the decision reversed. That's not a new problem. In the recent round of applications many names got multiple applications. A few combined their applications, a surprising number went to auction, and a few are still slugging it out, notably the two applicants for .africa. Some applications were turned down or withdrawn for completely nontechnical reasons such as .amazon and .patagonia. The domains .corp, .home. and .mail, all three of which have multiple active applications, are in limbo, all "on hold" so they don't progress, but not rejected either. It's unclear (quite possibly also within ICANN) whether these are intended to be rejections, or if they'll just wait and see whether there turns out to be some way to clear out the existing informal use to a level that would be compatible with selling them. In view of all that, one more hoop for applicants to jump through, an early check for technical problems, doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly compared to what happened this time, a late check a year into the process. I agree with the concerns about whether the IETF can do something like that fast enough, but if the actual schedule for the next round of new TLDs is anything like the schedule for this round, there should be plenty of time. R's, John