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

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From my understanding of the BC's established position on this subject, we are 
>not worried about "leveling the playing field" for registry operators.

The BC is looking out for the interests of business registrants and users.  In 
the new gTLD program we want "differentiation" and we want to see new gTLDs in 
multiple scripts and languages to serve global users.   Moreover, we have said 
that registrants benefit if a registry protects their domain name across 
multiple linguistic versions of a TLD (such as .ASIA proposed in Singapore)

That's why the BC has supported giving discounts or incentives for gTLD 
applicants to encourage them to offer versions of their TLD in underserved 
languages and scripts.    We really have never worried about helping applicants 
in need.

True, it's difficult to know if a discount is necessary to motivate the 
applicant to do additional language/scripts.  Which is a good reason to set a 
discount equal to the cost savings of not needing to do additional applicant 
evaluations when one applicant has multiple strings.   That way the discount is 
not charity, but just a reflection of lower evaluation costs -- in a gTLD 
program that is supposed to be run on a cost-recovery basis.

Jon is right to say that in some cases, bundling discounts could give one 
applicant a slightly lower cost than a competing applicant for the same string. 
 But that difference reflects cost savings on applicant evaluation in cases 
where the applicant is spending much more to file for several strings.   It is 
not a charitable assistance that creates the savings.

I believe Jon is suggesting that any such discounts be revoked for a string 
where competing applicants received no such discount.    As a matter of 
fairness that makes some sense, but I doubt it will be a significant amount.

Hope that helps,
Steve

--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482


From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:47:50 -0700
To: "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list'" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report

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…


From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:42 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'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?



From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:'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> 
[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<mailto:'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> 
[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<mailto:'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