Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft replacement proposal for bundling

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Happy to do my best to clarify.  

Yes, our recommendation (Richard, mine, but I think it fits with conversations 
I've had with Alex, Tijani, Carlos and others) was to leave this discount open 
to anyone, as our goal is to get the scripts out there -- a potential benefit 
to 
all script users -- while avoiding incentives for gaming.  This was put forward 
as a replacement for bundling as a way to fairly promote interest in 
smaller/less economically viable scripts.  


For needy applicants, don't remember if we discussed this, but my personal hope 
is that this could be applied to any additional discounts/assistance they would 
qualify for, again, with a goal of making it easier for the applicants.  
Especially in the early days as our sources of financing are still uncertain, 
this could make a lot of sense.  


In terms of fee reductions, my assumption is the same as yours.  The 
prioritization issue (no matter how we apply it) wouldn't factor in.

 
Hope this is helpful.  See you in Vilnius, 
Andrew


Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To: "SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 12:59:09 PM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft replacement proposal for bundling


Hi,

I have a question about this proposal.  I am trying to understand in terms of 
writing up the recommendations we have before us (a taks that is turning out to 
be harder tan though giver the condition of the current document)

We are already suggesting that the fees for all applications who meet the need 
condition be lowered by 47% (86 of 186)  and perhaps more.  


When you say reduct it by 60, 40, 20, are you suggesting that this reduction be 
applied after the reduction that is given to all need applicants?

or are you suggesting this as a reduction to is for anyone and not just the 
needy?


BTW, I am assuming that at least in terms of fee reductions we are not talking 
about prioritization since there are not a limited number for fee reductions - 
but perhaps I misunderstand - i have only be assuming that if there is 
prioritization it is applied to limited resource like grants.

thanks

a.

On 10 Sep 2010, at 16:57, Andrew Mack wrote:

> All,
> 
> Please excuse the lateness of this submission, but yesterday was a holiday 
> and 
>I was just able to compose now.
> 
> On the "bundling" discussion, based on our desire to come forward with a 
>consensus formula that both promotes more access in underserved languages and 
>yet also avoids some of the possible unintended consequences/gaming 
>opportunities noted by Eric, Richard and others, Richard and I worked up the 
>following formulation:
> 
> That in place of "bundled" support for IDN build out the WG would recommend a 
>simplified "direct" package of cost reductions to incentivize IDN build out in 
>underserved scripts for all applicants, whether national or international, NGO 
>or private, on the following basis:
> 
> For scripts with 1-10 million native users, a 60% discount from the typical 
>price of a new gTLD.  
>
> 
> For scripts with 10-50 million native users, a 40% discount.  
> 
> For scripts with 50-100 million native users, a 20% discount.  
> 
> No discount is recommended for scripts with more than 100 million users, as 
>they are considered large enough to constitute a strong market in the near 
>term 
>and thus support would be better focused on script groups that need it  most.
> 
> Let's discuss is there is time and I can re-work this to fit the tone of the 
>other parts of the document.  Thanks for all the inputs, Andrew
> 
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> 
> +1-202-256-1077 
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> www.amglobal.com
> 
> 
> From: Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 10:34:37 AM
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Current Draft Final report, v 2.9 Aug 31 + 
>Addenda with Public Comments Summary & Analsys
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Please find attached the Draft Final Report version 2.9, August 31, updated 
>based on today’s meeting.
> We worked on lines 255 to 269.
> The following have been identified as needing further review/consensus:
> a.       Lines 184 -185
> b.      Lines 238 - 240
> c.       Lines 263 - 264
> d.      Lines 267 - 269
> 
> Per my understanding at the end of the meeting today:
> 
> 1.       I have NOT made any color coding on the document indicating 
> consensus 
>and non consensus sections. The only thing I identified on this draft are the 
>lines we agreed to further wordsmith.
> 
> 2.       I have attached a draft of the Summary and Analysis of the public 
>comments (See Addenda – JAS WG Aug 31 line 150 on), which is part of the 
>Addenda 
>that still needs to be agreed upon. The Summary & Analysis is related to the 
>public comment received between June 16 and August 23  . I added the WG 
>discussions on the comments received, which still require the WG review and 
>consensus. Please note we will post the Summary and Analysis as a separate 
>document in response to the public comments. This is standard procedure for 
>all 
>public comments received for the New gTLD Program.
> 
> 
> 3.       We will send a proposed agenda for the next meeting.
> 
> The attached documents will be available at the Wiki shortly.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Karla