Dear fellow members, Attached is the final draft for posting to the ICANN public comments regarding the BC position on the 2nd JAS Milestone Report. Thanks to Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh and Steve DelBianco for your comments. It is clear that the BC does not want to see any applicant have a 'leg up' on another irrespective of whether one has had a reduced cost to apply or not, as evidenced in the dialogue. I have tried to find a fair way forward - recognizing that the final AG will assuredly go through some revisions prior to the next application round - to expresses those concerns. Steve provided me with the following guidance from previous BC postings on this topic, as follows. (I have included this so that members will see the consistency in these comments as well.) Here are our comments on the Final Guidebook: Since 2009, the BC has encouraged ICANN to make it easier for gTLD applicants to offer multiple variations of their TLD string, so long as the variations are legitimate translations or transliterations of the applied-for string. The Joint Applicant Support WG recommended "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" intheir Milestone Report. ICANNshould design incentive mechanisms to encourage the build-out of IDNs and underserved language-script communities. One incentive mechanism could be a reduction of the standard application fee for additional IDN versions and translations of the applied-for string. For example, the applicant for .museum should be allowed to pay one application fee for .museum, plus a reduced application fee for ".museo". The applicant could also pay incremental reduced fees for translations or transliterations in Korean, Arabic, etc. Here is from our scorecard comments: The BC has made previous comments about the importance of understanding the characteristics of users and registrants, and of how the Internet distribution is changing, both in geographical diversity and language diversity. In agreement with the GAC Scorecard point to support "applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited", the BC believes that gTLD applicants should be given fee reductions to offer additional versions of their applied-for string in IDN scripts and other languages. Barring any vialoent opposition to this document, Steve will post the attached on our behalf. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:33 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Indeed, Mike, there is a typo. Missing the word "it", as noted below. Good catch. "if the JAS WG's recommendation serves to give one applicant an advantage over another by providing discounts for various parts of the review process it is antithetical to ICANN's impartiality. Thanks, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:05 AM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report The first sentence of that principle does not make sense, there must be a typo somewhere, and so needs to be clarified. The second sentence is consistent with what I am thinking. the discount only applies up front for the application fees, and then the processes and costs are the same for everyone. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:57 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Mike: Below is the BC principle at issue. I support it. Not sure if you do or not. Sorry if I did not answer any of your questions to your satisfaction. Best, Jon "if the JAS WG's recommendation serves to give one applicant an advantage over another by providing discounts for various parts of the review process is antithetical to ICANN's impartiality. Once an application is submitted, each and every applicant must face the same processes and costs established in the AG to ensure a fair and equitable procedure." On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: Isn't the whole idea to try to 'level the playing field' to encourage applications from some parties who would not otherwise be in the same position to 'compete'? I am trying to figure out a better way to deal with the issue, but am not sure what the issue really is here. That is why I asked a couple questions already, which you have ignored. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:42 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Thanks Mike. The fee reductions would be reversed only if the applicant wanted to move forward with an auction -- need to do that to level the playing field. The applicant always could withdraw and get a refund. That kind of rule would prevent someone running to try to qualify for a discount for a .sport application, for example, and not being on the same competitive level as Ron. I don't think that kind of activity is really what we envisioned for this program -- call it gaming or not. How else would you suggest dealing with the issue? Best, Jon On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: Jon, I get your general point here, but am not sure that the right answer is to completely "reverse" the given support simply because their application meets contention. First, they would not necessarily, or even likely, know they were going to meet contention until after their application is filed and all attendant costs incurred. Second, the word 'gaming' is casually thrown in as the ICANN bogeyman, but there seem to be a bunch of safeguards in the proposal to help ensure that only qualified applicants would get any support. Do you have specific concerns about those safeguards, and/or do you see particular ways the program could be gamed, which might be more appropriate to address specifically? Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:00 AM To: Caroline Greer Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Caroline: I don't think that we need to add the "not" in the sentence. To make it clearer, however, we could say "Any fee reductions should be reversed if the applicant elects to proceed to a competitive auction." Reversed might be a better word than reapplied. Thanks. Jon On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Caroline Greer wrote: Jon / all, I just wanted to check my understanding of the new edit. Shouldn't we instead be saying that "....any fee reductions should not be reapplied to the applicant in the case of string contention with a non-qualified applicant"? Many thanks Caroline From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: 26 July 2011 17:41 To: 'Jon Nevett'; 'Steve DelBianco' Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Thank you for your comments, Jon. Any other members have strong feelings about Jon's amendment? If not, I will incorporate them into our next draft. As a reminder to all, Steve will be posting our final comment on this topic this Friday, July 29th - three days from today. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 8:04 AM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report Steve: I agree with the BC's position that "if the JAS WG's recommendation serves to give one applicant an advantage over another by providing discounts for various parts of the review process is antithetical to ICANN's impartiality. Once an application is submitted, each and every applicant must face the same processes and costs established in the AG to ensure a fair and equitable procedure." In the draft, we seem to deal with this concern in certain circumstances, but not explicitly when considering actual application fee reductions. An applicant that gets a fee reduction shouldn't be able to use such "saved" funds in an auction against an applicant who didn't get a fee reduction. The benefits for applicants should be limited to only qualified entities and only to support their applications, not to give them an unfair competitive advantage against another applicant for the same string. A system that gives one party a competitive advantage over another is a big invitation to gaming. I offer two changes to this effect in the attached. Thanks. Jon