Johan,

Good question! I am two minds here and these are my initial personal
views. This is a follow up to the first comment period and while
there are a lot of details that could be commented on, I think there
are just several that are really important to NCSG. If an NCSG
discussion can reach consensus on what are the areas where comments
are important, the comment period could be at the short end of
traditional lengths.

On the other hand, since there has to be a phase two (as I understand
this) in which there is a discussion of what should be done with the
auction proceeds, that process is not going to move fast, probably
with lots of jockeying for position, so there is little pressure for
a rapid second comment period on this first phase.

Also, and not relevant at this time, there may be carve-outs where
part of the existing auction proceeds are reduced, and the economist
in me tells me that future auction proceeds are likely to face
serious diminishing marginal returns, so the auction proceeds are
neither a prospective future cash cow, nor golden goose.

Quoting Johan Helsingius <[log in to unmask]>:

> On 10-05-19 18:23, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> > I would suggest strong support for a second public comment
> period.
>
> Thanks, Sam! Any opinion on how long it should be? Of course,
> the longer the more time for the community to formulate comments,
> but the longer the delay before the CCWG finishes.
>
> 	Julf
>