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

[Richard Tindal]

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 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
> ------