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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Missed that post,  sorry.

So it does seem to be saying that.   It may be an unintended consequence,  but 
this appears to
be the opposite of what we're chartered to do.  

Namely,  in certain situations it would be harm an applicant with limited funds 
to the benefit of an applicant
with significant funds.  E.g.  I am a well funded applicant who applies for the 
string .ABCDE in ten different 
languages and I get an advantage over ten other applicants who each applied for 
just one of these versions.

RT


On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Richard,
> On 9/1/10 6:40 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> That was how I read the language.
> 
> Earlier I wrote:
> 
> "First ... [issue raised more than once elsewhere] ... 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."
> 
> and
> 
> "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