RE: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

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

Please see my responses below Avri.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:47 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Does that make sense?
> 
> Not to me.
> 
> The cost recovery basis is to the best o my knowledge a 
> collective cost recovery, not cost recovery per application.

Chuck: As I recall we said nothing about 'collective cost recovery' or 'cost 
recovery per application'.  So either one or some hybrid in between would 
satisfy the recommendation.  We certainly did not support the idea that some 
applicants should subsidize the applications of their competitors.

> 
> Also, there is no guarantee that just because they do not 
> need to evaluate the registry in detail anymore does not mean 
> their might not be other issues that need to be dealt with in 
> this category of names.

Chuck: No argument here, but that is an easy adjustment.

> 
> So, unless the discount is for a reason of financial 
> difficulty and hence something to be discussed in that new 
> WG, I do not see the granting of a discount to the Registry 
> that wants many names to be within the recommendation set 
> down by the council for one name one application.

Chuck: Now you are raising a totally different issue than cost recovery, one 
that we left to Staff to consider for possible discounts for needy applicants 
and one that is being considered at least indirectely by the new SOAC WG that 
is being formed at this time.

> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 16:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If we simply follow the recommendation of the GNSO Council, 
> i.e., that fees should be based on cost recovery, then I 
> think the issue of fairness goes away.  In cases where the 
> same applicant applies for multiple gTLDs whether they be for 
> IDNs or not, application review costs that are not incurred 
> because they are duplicated, are not charged.
> > 
> > Does that make sense?
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:35 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck
> >> Cc: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> >> 
> >> Thanks Chuck.
> >> 
> >> I agree there is no consensus on that second point then. 
> >> While I understand the arguments you put forward (and which I 
> >> supposed are echoed by Edmon and others), I am also worried about 
> >> fairness. Applicants going for non IDN TLDs may also have an issue 
> >> with confusingly similar strings, but they would be 
> required to stump 
> >> up the 185k per application regardless as I understand it...
> >> 
> >> Stéphane
> >> 
> >> Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:45, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> >> 
> >>> Stephane,
> >>> 
> >>> As I understand it, it is first of all the first point, the
> >> one you agree with.  But there is a general concern regarding the 
> >> second point that are worth noting as well: If applicants 
> have to pay 
> >> $185,000+ for each IDN version of their TLD, they will undoubtedly 
> >> have to limit the number of IDN gTLD versions of their TLD 
> that they 
> >> apply for and that will unfortunately disadvantage the language 
> >> communities that are smaller and hence have less demand.
> >>> 
> >>> Chuck
> >>> 
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane 
> Van Gelder
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:48 AM
> >>>> To: Edmon Chung
> >>>> Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm sorry I may be unclear on this, even though we've 
> discussed it 
> >>>> before, but with so much going on in the GNSO world at the
> >> moment, I
> >>>> may have lost track.
> >>>> 
> >>>> If this is not variants, then what is it about? Are you 
> suggesting 
> >>>> that if I apply for TLD XYZ and I also want the IDN 
> equivalent, i 
> >>>> shouldn't be blocked from getting that TLD because it would be 
> >>>> considered confusingly similar by the algorithm / human 
> validation 
> >>>> systems ICANN is going to use (if so, I agree) but also
> >> that I should
> >>>> be allowed to request both XYZ and IDN-XYZ under one
> >> application and
> >>>> not have to pay a second application fee (which I'm not
> >> sure I would
> >>>> agree with)?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Stéphane
> >>>> 
> >>>> Le 14 avr. 2010 à 13:09, Edmon Chung a écrit :
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This is not about IDN Variants (which has to do with 
> IDN language 
> >>>>> tables/policies).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Adrian, yes, that is what this is attempting to achieve. 
> >>>> The DAG right
> >>>>> now is not clear on the issue.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Edmon
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> >>>>> Behalf
> >>>>>> Of Adrian Kinderis
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:35 PM
> >>>>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> Cc: 'Edmon Chung'; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> An existing TLD that wants the IDN equivalent won't get
> >>>> knocked back
> >>>>> because it is
> >>>>>> confusingly similar (i.e. The applicant is the same
> >> entity as the
> >>>>>> existing
> >>>>> gtld registry).
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I think...
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Adrian Kinderis
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> >>>>> Behalf
> >>>>>> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2010 8:28 PM
> >>>>>> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> Cc: 'Edmon Chung'; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Are we not talking about the variants here? If so, 
> variants have 
> >>>>>> already
> >>>>> been
> >>>>>> included in the updated documents staff provided for Nairobi.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> If we're not talking about variants, please explain 
> what we are 
> >>>>>> talking
> >>>>> about.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Stéphane
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Le 14 avr. 2010 à 03:53, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Thanks Edmon.  I am good with the draft, but wonder 
> if we have 
> >>>>>>> consensus
> >>>>> to go
> >>>>>> one step further and make a recommendation to Council,
> >>>> asking Council
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>> ask
> >>>>>> Staff to revise the DAG to clarify that multiple
> >>>> 'confusingly similar'
> >>>>> applications by
> >>>>>> the same applicant would not contend with one another.  
> >> I support
> >>>>>> that recommendation, and wonder whether there is any
> >>>> opposition in this group?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
> >>>>>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
> >>>>>>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> >>>>>>> http://rodenbaugh.com
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>>>> On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:10 AM
> >>>>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Given no further discussions on the 2 topics that were
> >> identified:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 1. Application of confusingly similar TLD strings
> >>>>>>>       - there seems to be enough agreement around this topic
> >>>> in general
> >>>>>>>       - also attached clean version of the document
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 2. Process for the application of IDN gTLDs, including those 
> >>>>>>> identified
> >>>>> in 1
> >>>>>>>       - there continues to be push back against
> >> having any dedicated
> >>>>> process to
> >>>>>> handle special case IDN TLD applications
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> And given that it seems any further discussion would
> >> require the
> >>>>>>> GNSO
> >>>>> council to
> >>>>>> consider whether an actual working group should be formed
> >>>> for further
> >>>>>> work
> >>>>> on 1 (if
> >>>>>> any) unless there is any particular objection, I will 
> report the 
> >>>>>> above
> >>>>> back to the
> >>>>>> council.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Edmon
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>>>> Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2807 - 
> Release Date: 
> >>>>>> 04/14/10
> >>>>> 04:22:00
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>