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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Two comments.

> 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.
First, the issue of not creating avoidable cost evaluating 
applications that share a single applicant has been raised more than once.
I don't think we should frame script and language need as "additional 
distinct applications" -- this is how Peter and Paul framed the issue 
at the Delhi meeting and this is still how ICANN frames applications, 
but Peter and Paul were focused on, as the DAGvX reflects, on highly 
capitalized applications, which is outside our area of responsibility.
Further, the Nairobi language does not instruct us to be constrained 
by cost recovery, but to be responsive to need, so we do not need to 
make reference to a "cost recovery principle".
I don't think there is any utility in evaluating each application 
using Verisign's platform for each application's "technical and 
business" capabilities, but I also don't think that an application for 
a string intending to serve a minority language community and one or 
more additional strings, in another minority language or a majority 
language, should receive the same terms and conditions as applications 
having no material need but seeking pricing discounts such as a 
"bundle" of associated applications.
> *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.
Second, the response to material need, and linguistic need, is not 
limited to bundling second and subsequent strings, but should apply to 
single applications for single strings.
Eric