Re: [NA-Discuss] A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter
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.
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 ------
Avri, At New Delhi Edmon Chung and I raised the SC/TC issue with Peter and Paul. Their response was exceedingly prompt and direct -- we were trying to get something without paying for it. Later, and I'm trying to remember which meeting it was, but its been on the order of two years, the ccNSO IDN FastTrack was limited to one script per territory. Now the one-per limitation has been relaxed, with SC/TC called a "variant" and various Arabic Script terminal characters also called "variants", for the ccNSO IDN FastTrack. However, Peter, and now Ron, have not shown any interest I'm aware of in revisiting the problem. I conclude that GNSO policy was not the primary motivation of Peter and Paul in New Delhi, and not the motivation of the ccNSO, and may not be the motivation of Peter and Ron in the present. Other than that, I agree that attempting to make a change in what an application is, from the point of view of the language needs of the populations to be serviced, with junior staff is structurally unlikely to have the desired results, and with senior staff has been tried without apparent effect. This leaves the broad membership of the Board, the GAC as a source of advice to the Board, the ALAC as a source of advice to the Board, and simply paying a duplicate fee to retain indigenous languages where colonial history has provided a European language, or duplicate fees to retain linguistic plurality unextinguished at the present time. Eric On 5/23/11 3:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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 ------
------ 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 ------
Something else to keep in mind with this proposal is the advantage it gives to better funded applicants. It's an unintended consequence, but unfortunately it's there. Let's say I'm a well funded applicant and I intend to apply for .SHOE, plus five other script versions of the word "SHOE" (one of which is the Thai script for "SHOE"). I submit six applications paying $185K for one of them and a reduced rate (the bundling discount) for the other five. Lets say an applicant in Thailand applies for just one TLD -- the Thai script word for "SHOE". I will end up in a contention set for that Thai script TLD however my cost basis is well below that of my local competitor -- who paid $185K. I am now in an even better position to outbid that competitor at auction as I have used less funds at the application stage (note: I'm assuming my competitor doesn't qualify for whatever support mechanism is approved). In this scenario I think the local guy, who applied for just one TLD, will see the bundling rule as unfair. R On May 23, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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 ------
------ 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 ------
Richard, I made just that point in my response to Ron, but it could be less obvious buried in my longer note and oblique style. Eric
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Richard Tindal