For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
Per discussion on our 14-Jul member call, here is a draft of BC comments Comments on the Second Milestone Report on Applicant Support in the New gTLD Program. Ron Andruff prepared this draft, which reflects standing BC position on encouraging new gTLD applicants to offer their domains in multiple languages and scripts. This comment period and docs are described at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.ht... These comments are due 29-Jul, giving us 14 days for review, edits, and approval. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. Thanks again to Ron for taking the lead on this. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination --
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 On Jul 15, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Per discussion on our 14-Jul member call, here is a draft of BC comments Comments on the Second Milestone Report on Applicant Support in the New gTLD Program.
Ron Andruff prepared this draft, which reflects standing BC position on encouraging new gTLD applicants to offer their domains in multiple languages and scripts.
This comment period and docs are described at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.ht...
These comments are due 29-Jul, giving us 14 days for review, edits, and approval.
All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list.
Thanks again to Ron for taking the lead on this.
Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination --
<BC comment on 2nd JAS Milestone Report v1.doc>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks Ron, so that also is consistent with the notion that discounts on application fees are OK, but afterwards everyone is treated equally, including during any auctions. There need not and ought not be any 'reverse' of fees if a supported applicant gets to an auction. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:33 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
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
From my understanding of the BC's established position on this subject, we are not worried about "leveling the playing field" for registry operators.
The BC is looking out for the interests of business registrants and users. In the new gTLD program we want "differentiation" and we want to see new gTLDs in multiple scripts and languages to serve global users. Moreover, we have said that registrants benefit if a registry protects their domain name across multiple linguistic versions of a TLD (such as .ASIA proposed in Singapore) That's why the BC has supported giving discounts or incentives for gTLD applicants to encourage them to offer versions of their TLD in underserved languages and scripts. We really have never worried about helping applicants in need. True, it's difficult to know if a discount is necessary to motivate the applicant to do additional language/scripts. Which is a good reason to set a discount equal to the cost savings of not needing to do additional applicant evaluations when one applicant has multiple strings. That way the discount is not charity, but just a reflection of lower evaluation costs -- in a gTLD program that is supposed to be run on a cost-recovery basis. Jon is right to say that in some cases, bundling discounts could give one applicant a slightly lower cost than a competing applicant for the same string. But that difference reflects cost savings on applicant evaluation in cases where the applicant is spending much more to file for several strings. It is not a charitable assistance that creates the savings. I believe Jon is suggesting that any such discounts be revoked for a string where competing applicants received no such discount. As a matter of fairness that makes some sense, but I doubt it will be a significant amount. Hope that helps, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:47:50 -0700 To: "'bc-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO@icann.org> GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report 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… From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:42 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:'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? From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:'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> [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<mailto:'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> [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<mailto:'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
Thanks Steve, I agree with everything you say, up to the last sentence. I disagree that it would be fair to revoke a discount previously given, merely because contention for the string leads to an auction. In many cases it will be difficult to foresee contention, particularly if the best pre-application advice cannot be afforded. Also I have not heard any explanation of how the 'gaming' bogeyman can cause problems in this scenario, given all the safeguards in place to prevent it (whatever it is). 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 Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 6:44 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report
From my understanding of the BC's established position on this subject, we are not worried about "leveling the playing field" for registry operators.
The BC is looking out for the interests of business registrants and users. In the new gTLD program we want "differentiation" and we want to see new gTLDs in multiple scripts and languages to serve global users. Moreover, we have said that registrants benefit if a registry protects their domain name across multiple linguistic versions of a TLD (such as .ASIA proposed in Singapore) That's why the BC has supported giving discounts or incentives for gTLD applicants to encourage them to offer versions of their TLD in underserved languages and scripts. We really have never worried about helping applicants in need. True, it's difficult to know if a discount is necessary to motivate the applicant to do additional language/scripts. Which is a good reason to set a discount equal to the cost savings of not needing to do additional applicant evaluations when one applicant has multiple strings. That way the discount is not charity, but just a reflection of lower evaluation costs -- in a gTLD program that is supposed to be run on a cost-recovery basis. Jon is right to say that in some cases, bundling discounts could give one applicant a slightly lower cost than a competing applicant for the same string. But that difference reflects cost savings on applicant evaluation in cases where the applicant is spending much more to file for several strings. It is not a charitable assistance that creates the savings. I believe Jon is suggesting that any such discounts be revoked for a string where competing applicants received no such discount. As a matter of fairness that makes some sense, but I doubt it will be a significant amount. Hope that helps, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:47:50 -0700 To: "'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review: BC Comments on 2nd JAS Milestone Report 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. 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? 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
Many thanks Jon. I think using “reversed” indeed works better. I was understanding it differently with the other wording. Could just be my reading of it though! Best regards, Caroline. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: 27 July 2011 14:00 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
participants (5)
-
Caroline Greer -
Jon Nevett -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco