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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike.  The fee reductions would be reversed only if the applicant wanted 
to move forward with an auction -- need to do that to level the playing field.  
The applicant always could withdraw and get a refund.  That kind of rule would 
prevent someone running to try to qualify for a discount for a .sport 
application, for example, and not being on the same competitive level as Ron.  
I don't think that kind of activity is really what we envisioned for this 
program -- call it gaming or not.  How else would you suggest dealing with the 
issue?  Best, Jon




On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 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
>  
> 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
>  
>