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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

As I understand this language it says, for example,  Verisign would get a 
reduction in application fees when it applies for multiple, IDN versions of 
.COM.

As another example, I happen to be a well funded applicant.  If I apply for the 
TLD strings  .NEWS  and also .NOTICIAS ('news' in Spanish) I will pay a lower 
fee than someone who applied for .NOTICIAS only - even though I am competing 
with that person. 

Do I understand the language correctly?

Thx

Richard



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 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 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 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>