RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suspect we have gotton off topic for this list but it is an
interesting discussion that I continue below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Coming from you, I think that will get the appropriate attention. 
> Coming from Werner and Eric, to the KPMG guy, who clearly 
> wanted to hear what he thought we should be saying, rather 
> than what we were in fact saying, about the design of the 
> evaluation process, had no discernible effect.

I doubt it will get any more attention coming from me.  In my comments
to DAG1 and DAG2 I recall making what I thought was a strong case that
applicants who file multiple applications should not be required to
subsidize applicants who file one application.  But that was rejected by
Staff without any sound justification.

> 
> Clearly, ICANN entertained this notion last year with the 
> "qualified operator" proposal, so that the applications 
> brought by "pre-qualified operators" would not necessarily 
> inflict repeated cost for whatever constitutes determining if 
> {VGRS|NS|AF|CORE|COOP} are technically qualified to operate a 
> registry where no substantive changes in the contract is assumed.
> 
> This problem cuts both ways. I've already described the 
> benefit of disclosure of application inter-dependence, now 
> consider the cost, the non-monetary cost, of non-discovery of 
> inter-dependence.

I don't think anyone would argue with the idea that the evaluation
process should be as cost-effective as possible.  That said, any step
that reduces costs without sacrificing the integrity of the process
should be encouraged.  On a side question: is there such a thing as a
non-monetary cost, especially with regard to the proposed new gTLD
process?

> 
> Suppose Fly-by-Nite-Registry-Wannabie-LLC (FbNRW-LLC) submits 
> an application for R1. Upon evaluation, FbNRW-LLC is just 
> barely capable of operating R1. However, FbNRW-LLC has also 
> submitted applications for R2, R3, ... all of which have the 
> same evaluation results. Just barely qualified.
> 
> The only way the current process allows this information to 
> be known, by anyone other than FbNRW-LLC, is when FbNRW-LLC 
> fails to operate one or more, even all of R1 or R2 or R3 or 
> ... When they don't meet their performance numbers.
> 
> OK, so there's an after-market in buying bad registry paper 
> but what is the process win in this?
> 
> Now one place we didn't want to go was where Mike just 
> suggested, the fee and cost recovery. This may just be a CORE 
> thing, we're reconciled to the cost, so long as it results in 
> evaluation for known criteria, contract to known terms, and 
> delegation in known time. We're trying to persuade ICANN to 
> improve the process using language they are capable of 
> hearing. Nearly every Board member I spoke to at Sydney about 
> Step by Step (a proposal to accept applications and process 
> those for which no complicated evaluation was required, and 
> no objections offered, while the complicated evaluation 
> criteria is yet to be completed, and therefore unimplemented) 
> had, as their first question "Are you trying to reduce fees?" 
> And as hard as it was, the answer was "No. We're trying to 
> reduce time."
> 
> Avri, I hope this answers part of your question.
> 
> Eric
>