[NA-Discuss] A comment on the Andruff Bundling Letter
richardtindal at me.com
Mon May 23 19:43:05 UTC 2011
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.
On May 23, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
> 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