[NA-Discuss] A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter
avri at ella.com
Mon May 23 19:09:49 UTC 2011
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.
On 23 May 2011, at 14:43, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 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.
>> RE: A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter
>> From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:05:00 -0400
>> To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams'" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>, <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> 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,
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss