Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Bundled pricing proposed language
Possibly we'll discuss this on the call today- but I wonder about the choice of words "strongly supports"? Myself and at least one other have spoken out strongly against bundled pricing, especially "open to any applicant whether or not they requested support". On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:18 AM, Andrew Mack wrote: 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 gTLDsThe 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 AMSubject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Question 1: Size of applicant pool for supportHi 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 of Internet 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 DoriaEnvoyé : lundi 30 août 2010 23:04 À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxxObjet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Question 1: Size of applicant pool for supportHi, 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 needb. 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. Elaine Pruis VP Client Services elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 509 899 3161
|