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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike:

Below is the BC principle at issue.  I support it.  Not sure if you do or not.  
Sorry if I did not answer any of your questions to your satisfaction.

Best,

Jon

"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." 




On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> Isn’t the whole idea to try to ‘level the playing field’ to encourage 
> applications from some parties who would not otherwise be in the same 
> position to ‘compete’?  I am trying to figure out a better way to deal with 
> the issue, but am not sure what the issue really is here.  That is why I 
> asked a couple questions already, which you have ignored…
>  
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>  
> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:42 AM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>