[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Bundled pricing proposed language

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Below please find the language Tijani and I are proposing for the section on 
bundled pricing (bullet c under what kind of support can be offered).  Hope 
this 
works for everyone.  


Thanks and speak to you soon, Andrew
----------------------

Build-out in underserved languages and IDNs for new gTLDs 
The Working Group strongly supports bundled pricing for applicants willing to 
apply for multiple scripts simultaneously. 

 
The goal of bundled pricing would be to encourage applicants to build out in 
numerous scripts at once by making it easier and less expensive to build out in 
additional scripts – especially scripts that are currently underrepresented in 
the root – and helping to combat a possible increase in the “digital divide” 
for 
countries and regions with less common scripts.
 
The effort would continue to follow ICANN’s cost recovery principle, as much of 
the cost reduction would come from ICANN’s lower evaluation costs for bundled 
applications, which would be evaluated once (not separately) on a series of 
technical and business criteria.
 
Importantly, bundled pricing should not take resources away from the other 
support activities that the WG proposes, and would be open to any applicant 
whether or not they requested support as outlined in sections a) and b) above.
 
Finally, the Working Group recommends the development of clear tests to prevent 
gaming and ensure that support reaches its targets.  
Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 3:51:27 AM
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Question 1: Size of applicant pool for 
support

 
Hi Avri,
 
This issue was debated in length, and we finally decided in the 2 last calls 
not 
to restrict the support to only one category. It was a consensus. The pool 
seize 
will be will determined by the resources available, but not by an arbitrary 
decision of our WG to exclude all the categories except one. The consensus was 
that applicants meeting one of the a to e criteria (with no preference order) 
plus the main one which is the need are eligible.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director 
Mediterranean Federation ofInternet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax     :+ 216 70 825 231
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
Envoyé : lundi 30 août 2010 23:04
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Question 1: Size of applicant pool for support
 
 
Hi,
 
I was supposed to send this message out on Friday.  Apologies.
 
An open issue that needs to be resolved before getting back to word-smithing  
of 
the final report is to what degree do we want to restrict the pool of 
applicants 
eligible for whatever assistance we can muster up. Also referred to as the size 
of the funnel in the call.
 
We currently have a proposal that:
 
a. first judges need
b. then if there is need, as long as you meet conditions a-e  you get 
assistance.
 
The process in the snapshot said:
 
If you meet conditions A and have need you get support.
 
Obviously the pool of possible applicants is larger in the proposal than in the 
snapshot.
 
In deciding to move toward this proposal and away from the situation as 
documented in the snapshot, we need to determine whether:
 
a. this change is in response to a strong call by the comments
b. this change is favored by a consensus in the group.
 
I don't know the answer to either of those questions yet.
 
What do people think?
 
a.