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

[Caroline Greer <greer@xxxxxxx>]

Many thanks Jon. I think using “reversed” indeed works better. I was 
understanding it differently with the other wording. Could just be my reading 
of it though!
 
Best regards,
 
Caroline.
 
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon 
Nevett
Sent: 27 July 2011 14:00
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