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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Steve, I agree with everything you say, up to the last sentence.  I
disagree that it would be fair to revoke a discount previously given, merely
because contention for the string leads to an auction.  In many cases it
will be difficult to foresee contention, particularly if the best
pre-application advice cannot be afforded. 

 

Also I have not heard any explanation of how the 'gaming' bogeyman can cause
problems in this scenario, given all the safeguards in place to prevent it
(whatever it is).  

 

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
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 6:44 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report

 

>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>
Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:47:50 -0700
To: "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'" <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
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? 

 

 

 

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