Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TR: bundling

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Tijani.  Appreciate the detailed explanation.

I'm still opposed to including this multiple IDN language in our report (absent 
a level of need from the applicant).  Here are my reasons:

1.     It's outside the scope of our report -- in that it is not focused on 
needy applicants.    Indeed, to the contrary, its primary beneficiaries will be 
very wealthy applicants like Verisign.  I think it undermines our credibility 
to be arguing for a provision that primarily benefits wealthy applicants.

2.     It could harm non-wealthy applicants.  Per the example I gave, a wealthy 
(multiple string) applicant for .NOTICIAS would be given a discount on the 
application fee whereas a non-wealthy applicant for .NOTICIAS (who only applied 
for that one string) would have to pay the full fee.    As these two parties 
compete for .NOTICIAS we would have caused a bizarre situation whereby the 
already wealthy first applicant is given yet another advantage in winning the 
string.

3.      The cost-based logic we have applied to argue for a discount for 
multiple-IDN applicants could just as easily be applied to multi-ASCII 
applicants.  For example, someone who applies for  .SHOE,  .FOOTWEAR,  .BOOT 
and  .SLIPPER  should receive the same fee discount if we are to rationally 
apply the logic we provided.

Am interested in other members views on this.

RT


On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> Eric and Richard,
>  
> As you know, I was absolutely against any support to a second or third string 
> for the same applicant even if it’s in non ASCII script. The reason is that I 
> find this opportunity a chance for the needy applicants to get some support 
> for their applications, and  I notice that there is a tendency in the group 
> for making the number of eligible applicants small. My main objective is to 
> make the resolution 20 the most useful for the possible maximum number of 
> needy applicants. And I find that it’s not fair to support a single applicant 
> for 2 strings while others will not apply because they can’t bear the heavy 
> load of the Application cost.
>  
> At the end of the last Friday call, Andrew proposed that we work together on 
> a language that will be acceptable for both of us.
> On Monday, we had a skype conversation, and I explained that outside of the 
> scope of our WG, I already expressed my support to a reduced price for a 
> second string in non ASCII character as it was done for the IDN ccTLD fast 
> track. So, I agree with Andrew on the principle of encouraging the entry of 
> underserved languages in the root. But I couldn’t accept to give them any 
> support because it will be subtracted from the resources we try to find for 
> the needy applicants. Andrew explained that no material support will be 
> provided; only support their position to get bundled prices from ICANN.
>  
> Andrew proposed a draft that I modified to make it clear that our support 
> will not weaken the support to the needy applicants.
>  
> I propose to add a paragraph after the last recommendation of work team 1 
> that will get the consensus to express our support in general to the bundled 
> pricing that will have no impact on our efforts of supporting the needy 
> applicants. I’m sure the proposed text is perfectible.
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 : Elaine Pruis [mailto:elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Envoyé : mardi 31 août 2010 16:55
> À : Tijani BEN JEMAA; Andrew Mack
> Objet : bundling
>  
> Happy to hear your reasoning behind the wording put forth this morning.
>  
> Elaine Pruis
> VP Client Services
> elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 509 899 3161
>