Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Caroline:

I don't think that we need to add the "not" in the sentence.  To make it 
clearer, however, we could say "Any fee reductions should be reversed if the 
applicant elects to proceed to a competitive auction."  Reversed might be a 
better word than reapplied.

Thanks.

Jon

On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Caroline Greer wrote:

> Jon / all,
> I just wanted to check my understanding of the new edit. Shouldn’t we instead 
> be saying that “....any fee reductions should not be reapplied to the 
> applicant in the case of string contention with a non-qualified applicant”? 
> Many thanks
> Caroline
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Ron Andruff
> Sent: 26 July 2011 17:41
> To: 'Jon Nevett'; 'Steve DelBianco'
> Cc: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
>  
> Thank you for your comments, Jon.  Any other members have strong feelings 
> about Jon’s amendment?  If not, I will incorporate them into our next draft.
>  
> As a reminder to all, Steve will be posting our final comment on this topic 
> this Friday, July 29th – three days from today.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> President
>  
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> New York, New York 10001
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Jon Nevett
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:04 AM
> To: Steve DelBianco
> Cc: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
>  
> Steve:  
>  
> I agree with the BC’s position that "if the JAS WG’s recommendation serves to 
> give one applicant an advantage over another by providing discounts for 
> various parts of the review process is antithetical to ICANN’s impartiality.  
> Once an application is submitted, each and every applicant must face the same 
> processes and costs established in the AG to ensure a fair and equitable 
> procedure." 
>  
> In the draft, we seem to deal with this concern in certain circumstances, but 
> not explicitly when considering actual application fee reductions.  An 
> applicant that gets a fee reduction shouldn't be able to use such "saved" 
> funds in an auction against an applicant who didn't get a fee reduction.  
>  
> The benefits for applicants should be limited to only qualified entities and 
> only to support their applications, not to give them an unfair competitive 
> advantage against another applicant for the same string.  A system that gives 
> one party a competitive advantage over another is a big invitation to gaming.
>  
> I offer two changes to this effect in the attached.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Jon
>