Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Consensus Indicators - Request for Action

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

 remain unconvinced by arguments in favor of and remain strongly against adding 
any notion of bundling for IDN languages to the recommendations.

I just want to refer to one point:  the GNSO approval. Andrew compared this to 
price reductions.  He is correct, we do not know which of the recommendations 
that the GNSO will accept.  I do want to point out a fundamental difference in 
the two issues.  While the GNSO approved price differentials, it was quite 
specific in prohibiting the bundling of applications.  I think this difference 
is significant given the Board's appropriate attitude of sticking within the 
bounds set by the GNSO recommendations in its decisions regarding the new gTLD 
program. 

I also do not think it is reasonable given the amount of in charter work we 
still have to do, to spend time working on support for bundling as a solution 
for the in-charter objective of support for IDN applications.

a.

On 18 Jul 2011, at 22:58, Andrew Mack wrote:

> Eric, Carlton and WG,
> 
> Here are my two cents...
> 
> 1) To what I took from Carlton's first email, I think we've agreed that we do 
> want to support JAS-appropriate IDN applicants -- though this class of 
> potential applicant, while deserving, wouldn't take precedence per se over 
> non-IDN JAS-appropriate applicants.  
> 
> 2) We've also established that there are many instances where communities -- 
> or potentially those that wish to serve them -- would in order to truly 
> accomplish their goals need to have the ability to offer more than one script 
> to fully do so.  (Eric's examples of Native North American groups, diverse 
> Indian scripts, users of Arabic and English or French scripts have all been 
> discussed).
> 
> 3) I recognize and applaud the work of the group that held discussions with 
> ALAC in Singapore, but still am concerned that even at $47k we are in effect 
> over-taxing the multi-script applicant, since the marginal cost of adding the 
> additional IDN is likely to be less than $47k. I also still wonder if it is 
> not possible to encourage both lower cost and greater build-out in 
> multi-script communities by packaging these applications together.  The 
> Indian examples I think are significant and wonder if the precedent we set 
> with the proposed special request of to the Board arrangement will work in 
> the end.
> 
> I know there are many WG members that are concerned about gaming, and I get 
> that and think we should work on it directly as with any other part of our 
> recommendations where we want to avoid gaming.  Still, so far the most 
> compelling argument against putting forward combined applications is the one 
> I heard in Singapore -- that the GNSO won't buy it.  Perhaps that's true, but 
> as with our other recommendations (such as price reductions), we really don't 
> know.  
> 
> Whatever we decide in the end as a group, I do feel that our language should 
> reflect the preference for letting the applicants speak for themselves and 
> request the kind of application they want.
> 
> Look forward to discussing this and the other issues tomorrow,
> Andrew
> 
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams 
> <eric.brunner.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> The requirements for the needs-qualified applicant for which two or more 
> strings substantially better serve the proposed, or proposing service 
> community or communities (or would be substantially harmed by a associating 
> the services, or community or communities with only a single string). 
> 
> There was agreement among the members of the small ALAC and GAC drafting team 
> that the GAC target of $47k per is a workable solution to most of the plural 
> script use cases we could think of, with the exception of South Asian 
> scripts, for which either special case pleading to the Board could be 
> offered, or incremental partial plural applications would suffice resulting 
> in the full plurality after the January-April 2012 window, again with 
> possible special case pleading to the Board for continuous intra-round 
> increments, or in within the windows of subsequent rounds.
> 
> The issue has been addressed by the ALAC members of JAS who participated in 
> the small ALAC-GAC meeting(s) in Singapore. If there are GNSO members of JAS, 
> or individual members of JAS who have alternate proposals to resolve an issue 
> for which there was agreement in Singapore, or who are unclear on the above, 
> please let me, or Avri, or Evan, or Cintra know.  
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> Hi Elaine:
> Sorry for the confusion, was trying to be economical with words so let me try 
> again.
> 
> Start with accepting the fact that a community of interest might be best 
> served by two scripts. So we have two (2) applications from the same - single 
> - applicant. The questions are 1) whether an eligible applicant who has 
> proposed two separate applications could attract support for both 
> applications, i.e. both fall within the policy goal and assessed as 'needy' 
> 2) Given objective, whether you could jointly - not singly, one after the 
> other - assess both applications.
> 
> Yes, processed by needs evaluators.  And yes, finally processed together by 
> ICANN.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Carlton
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Would you rephrase this please, I don't know what exactly you are asking:
> 
> "The question then is whether this group would wish to encourage multiple 
> needs-accessed applications from a single applicant and that they be 
> processed as 'conjoint' applications?  "
> 
> What is" needs -accessed?"
> 
> How do you mean "processed"?  Processed by the needs evaluators? Processed by 
> ICANN (where there is no system in place to process multiple scripts from 
> regular applicants)?
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> Elaine
> 
> 
> On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
>> The question then is whether this group would wish to encourage multiple 
>> needs-accessed applications from a single applicant and that they be 
>> processed as 'conjoint' applications? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>                                                                               
>                                                         
> 
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> 
> +1-202-642-6429  amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx   
> 2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.amglobal.com
> 
>