<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Hi there,<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Below is a draft constituency statement on domain name tasting. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>We updated our statement of a few months ago in light of the pending motion to restrict the AGP:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 15px; "> <span style="color:#002FD7"><u style="text-underline:#002FD7"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml</a></u></span></span></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Please send any comments on this draft as soon as possible.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Thank you,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>-------------------</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>NCUC Statement on Domain Name Tasting</div><div>1 April 2008<br><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;">The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) supports the current motion to recommend restricting the Add Grace Period (AGP) in an effort to curb domain name tasting.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The AGP has unintentionally opened the door to the practice of domain tasting, which substantially restricts consumer choice for available domain names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Although it is clear that ICANN should address the problem of tasting, some have concerns that a policy completely forbidding refunds would unduly hinder legitimate business practices, burden registries and registrars, and interfere with the business relationships between contacting parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>NCUC believes the 6 March motion represents a fair compromise, and should eliminate the abuse of the AGP without placing undue restrictions on registries and registrars.</p> <div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal">By placing a cap on the number of deletes for which a refund can be received, the proposal eliminates the benefit for domain tasting without unduly burdening others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The best available information indicates that the proposed cap will be sufficient to shield registrars from unreasonable expense in most circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Moreover, the number of undeserved refunds that could be obtained beneath this cap is small enough to provide little financial incentive for exploitation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This, coupled with the proposal to make the $.20 ICANN fee nonrefundable, should curtail domain name tasting.</div> <div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>The “Extraordinary Circumstances” Exception </b></p> <div class="MsoNormal">Some public comments expressed concern that allowing an “extraordinary circumstances” exception for refunds may amount to a loophole rendering the entire resolution unenforceable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>NCUC does not share this concern and believes that the proposal is narrowly tailored enough that it will be able to prevent the sort of abuse of the AGP that the pending proposal in intended to eliminate.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div> <div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal">The exception for extraordinary circumstances is intended to give registries some discretion to permit a refund in excess of the new limit in situations where an unforeseen problem has arisen through no fault of the registrar and where the registry feels that it would be unfair to make the registrar pay for the unforeseen deletes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This preserves a certain amount of the flexibility that would normally exist in the business relationship between the registry and the registrar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because it is intended to vest some discretion with the registry, the motion necessarily contains some degree of vague language.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div> <div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal">This flexibility, however, does not create unfettered discretion in the registry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It does make clear that this discretion is reserved for truly exception circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Moreover, it indicates that a pattern of request for an exception to this policy would be clear evidence that the circumstances would not be exceptional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If registries were to abuse this discretion and make bad faith determinations that circumstances were exceptional, then they would be in violation of this policy.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div> <div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal">Research has indicated that where a registrar has engaged in domain tasting, that practice has been readily apparent from statistics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The small costs involved in registration mean that this practice is only profitable when conducted on a very large scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Thus when a registrar engaged in tasting seeks an exemption, it will quickly become apparent to the registry that the registrar is engaged in the conduct specifically forbidden by this policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because of this, there should be little difficulty in proving that the registry abused its discretion where it allowed unwarranted exemptions.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b>Timeline for Enactment </b></p> <div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>While it is reasonable to include a stipulation as to when the current proposal would go into effect, this process should not be bogged down by excessive debate over how long is necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The calculation for the number of refunds allowed is simple, and should be easy to implement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since domain tasting is an ongoing problem, parties should strive to agree upon a quick but reasonable time frame for this policy to go into effect.</div> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><br clear="all"> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"> <div class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[1]</span></span></a> <span style="font-size:11.0pt">6 March 2008 Motion on Domain Name Tasting before GNSO Council is available at: <span style="color:#002FD7"><u style="text-underline: #002FD7"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml</a></u></span></span></div> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment--> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>