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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon, I get your general point here, but am not sure that the right answer is
to completely "reverse" the given support simply because their application
meets contention.  First, they would not necessarily, or even likely, know
they were going to meet contention until after their application is filed
and all attendant costs incurred.  Second, the word 'gaming' is casually
thrown in as the ICANN  bogeyman, but there seem to be a bunch of safeguards
in the proposal to help ensure that only qualified applicants would get any
support.  Do you have specific concerns about those safeguards, and/or do
you see particular ways the program could be gamed, which might be more
appropriate to address specifically?  

 

Best,

Mike

 

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:00 AM
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report

 

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