RE: [bc-gnso] Final BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
Dear fellow members,
Attached is the final draft for posting to the ICANN public comments
regarding the BC position on the 2nd JAS Milestone Report.
Thanks to Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh and Steve DelBianco for your comments.
It is clear that the BC does not want to see any applicant have a 'leg up'
on another irrespective of whether one has had a reduced cost to apply or
not, as evidenced in the dialogue. I have tried to find a fair way forward
- recognizing that the final AG will assuredly go through some revisions
prior to the next application round - to expresses those concerns.
Steve provided me with the following guidance from previous BC postings on
this topic, as follows. (I have included this so that members will see the
consistency in these comments as well.)
Here are our comments on the Final Guidebook:
Since 2009, the BC has encouraged ICANN to make it easier for
gTLD applicants to offer multiple variations of their TLD string, so long as
the variations are legitimate translations or transliterations of the
applied-for string. The Joint Applicant Support WG recommended "Support for
Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" intheir Milestone Report.
ICANNshould design incentive mechanisms to encourage the
build-out of IDNs and underserved language-script communities.
One incentive mechanism could be a reduction of the standard
application fee for additional IDN versions and translations of the
applied-for string. For example, the applicant for .museum should be allowed
to pay one application fee for .museum, plus a reduced application fee for
".museo". The applicant could also pay incremental reduced fees for
translations or transliterations in Korean, Arabic, etc.
Here is from our scorecard comments:
The BC has made previous comments about the importance of
understanding the characteristics of users and registrants, and of how the
Internet distribution is changing, both in geographical diversity and
language diversity. In agreement with the GAC Scorecard point to support
"applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited", the BC
believes that gTLD applicants should be given fee reductions to offer
additional versions of their applied-for string in IDN scripts and other
languages.
Barring any vialoent opposition to this document, Steve will post the
attached on our behalf.
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
Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:33 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
Indeed, Mike, there is a typo. Missing the word "it", as noted below. Good
catch.
"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
it is antithetical to ICANN's impartiality.
Thanks,
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
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
The first sentence of that principle does not make sense, there must be a
typo somewhere, and so needs to be clarified. The second sentence is
consistent with what I am thinking. the discount only applies up front for
the application fees, and then the processes and costs are the same for
everyone.
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
Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:57 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
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 <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 <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
Attachment:
BC comment on 2nd JAS Milestone Report vF.doc
|