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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Understood.    Let me propose this.   

Let's include language that says "the bundling discount should not apply to 
corporate applicants who clearly have sufficient funds to pay the regular 
application fee".

If we don't add that language the main beneficiaries  of the rule will be large 
corporations who want to extend their brand into new markets.

I have no problem with Verisign or IBM applying for the Hindi version of their 
brand. I just think it is unfair if they pay $90k (say) for their Hindi TLD and 
some  local applicant who wants to compete with Verisign or IBM pays $185k for 
a different Hindi string (let's say the local guy applies for the Hindi version 
of WEB)

RT



Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Richard, Eric and all,
>  
> Thank you for pointing out what are some important possible loopholes in the 
> work we’ve done so far on bundling.  The goal from the start was to create 
> incentives to get incremental TLDs in scripts that aren’t being served.  
> Providing access, not saving money is the end I was hoping to achieve.  But 
> you make good points.
>  
> Certainly we don’t want to disadvantage needy applicants, nor do we want to 
> advantage the already-advantaged, and your examples will help us make the 
> language clearer.
>  
> To your specific points:
>  
> For your .noticias example, where you are assuming multiple applicants are 
> applying for the same string in the same script, I agree that bundling 
> shouldn’t apply.  Our goal is to encourage IDN build-out in underserved 
> scripts, not favor a particular candidate – especially not an already 
> advantaged one.  We can clearly limit bundling to cases where the effect 
> would be incremental not competitive.
>  
> To your point about multi-ASCII applicants, you’re right.  In such a case, 
> there’s no incremental benefit for underserved communities, hence no bundling 
> should apply. 
>  
> Finally, to your question about scope, we’ve talked about this a lot and I 
> think a good many strong arguments have been made on this, most eloquently by 
> Tijani and Alex talking about how this will help Africa, the Arabic speaking 
> world, etc.  Eric’s points about India are also very valid and I think they 
> all make good cases for including it in – as an option.
>  
> I have been – rightly – accused of repeating myself so I won’t make the 
> arguments again here.  Suffice it to say that I think we should keep bundling 
> in the final report – even if we note that there’s some disagreement over the 
> details or utility – and let’s let the Board determine if it was or wasn’t in 
> scope.  We’ve already spent the time on it and I think that solution respects 
> the efforts of people on all sides of this issue.
>  
> Hope this is helpful.  Speak with you tomorrow,
> Andrew
>  
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> 
> +1-202-256-1077 
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> www.amglobal.com
> 
> 
> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 11:20:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TR: bundling
> 
> 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
>>  
>