[NA-Discuss] A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

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 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>
>>>
>>> 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>
>