Hi, I think the pressure on the staff on this particular issue is umisplaced. Until such time as the Board overrules the GNSO Policy position that there is a 1:1 relationship between applications and strings, there is nothing the staff can do. a. On 23 May 2011, at 14:43, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Colleagues,
Ron Andruff has written a response to my comment which the list software bounced has he's not a subscriber to the na-discuss list.
It appears below.
Eric
Subject: RE: A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:05:00 -0400 To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams'" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>, <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Eric,
Thank you for your reasoned analysis. In response I can say that I share your apprehension that 'competition policy concerns remain unaddressed', but believe that those issues can be addressed ONCE the critical issue of bundling is on the table. Until we can get staff to at least look at this deficiency, the cards are stacked against those applicants that wish to serve end-users' needs simply because budgets will constrain them.
It should be well-noted that the current AGB allows any entity that has multiples of USD 185,000 to apply for multiples of the same string in other scripts/languages. This makes no sense, as you well point out.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------