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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I tend to agree with Evan that any proposal that applies to all and not just 
those identified as in ned and meet the other conditions falls outside of our 
mandate.

I also think that it is still dangerous from the gaming point of view.

a.


On 13 Sep 2010, at 01:47, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> If this proposal is to offer a discount to everyone, doesn't it really fall 
> outside the scope of this WG? Aren't we here to develop criteria to determine 
> who may qualify for *special* consideration, and then determine what that 
> consideration should be?
> 
> If there's a proposal that offers (for lack in my mind of a more delicate 
> term) a "bulk discount" on the same string being offered in multiple IDN 
> scripts, and offers it to everyone, is it really a part of our mandate in 
> this WG? Andrew, you and I have privately debated this particular point 
> before and I don't know if it significantly changes in the current wording.
> 
> The suggestion has plenty of merit, but I'm concerned that including it in 
> our scope blurs the primary message that some applicants are more 
> disadvantaged than others. Your proposal broadens the playing field but 
> doesn't do anything to balance it. IMO.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> On 12 September 2010 13:45, Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> 
>