Fwd: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

[Carlos Afonso]

Robin, I would agree if we had thoroughly reviewed what PIR is doing and
had no objections to it. If we have done this, we should issue a formal
statement on the PIR actions. In addition, we, non-commercial domain
name holders, are also users of other gTLD domains, so the non-.org
issues also should be followed by us, of course.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Robin Gross wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> There has been some discussion here in New Delhi that perhaps the best approach
> for curtailing domain name tasting is through private sector action, rather than
> GNSO action.  Considering the approach of PIR, Affilias and Neustar, etc to try
> to deal with tasting, it may not be necessary (even duplicative) for GNSO to
> take action.   On the other side however, some registries may never be willing
> to curtail the practice since they profit from it, and so GNSO policy is necessary.
>
> I'd be curious to hear what NCUC members think about this issue.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>> *Date: *February 10, 2008 2:50:05 AM PST
>> *To: *NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council
>> Motion*
>>
>> Hi there NCUC'ers,
>>
>> Below is a proposed motion from a very small ad hoc group to curtail Domain
>> Name Tasting.   The motion below hasn't formally been made and will NOT be
>> voted on this week in New Delhi, but Council will discuss the motion during
>> our meeting on Wednesday.   So I'm really keen to hear what members of the
>> constituency think about how to handle domain name tasting.
>>
>> Some on Council were a bit uncomfortable that the group came back to council
>> with a "solution to the problem" instead of coming back with a plan for how
>> the GNSO should work through the issue together.  Some on council feel a bit
>> more discussion should happen (not many months, but perhaps a few weeks).
>>  Perhaps a better solution for DNT should be proposed than what is below?   Or
>> perhaps the solution below is the right approach?   I'd appreciate it if we
>> could discuss this during the constituency call on Tuesday
>> (see http://ncuc.webexone.com for details on how to participate in the call).
>>  Also, since some of us won't be able to participate on the NCUC call given
>> the time zone differences, we should also discuss the issue on the list here.
>>  Thoughts?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>
>>> *Date: *February 6, 2008 7:31:11 PM PST
>>> *To: *<council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>> *Subject: **[council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion*
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the
>>> domain tasting design team.
>>>
>>> Some comments may be helpful.
>>>
>>> 1.  The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that, because
>>> of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further work.
>>> Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to
>>> recommend a policy to the Board.
>>>
>>> 2.  The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the
>>> subject of unanimous agreement.
>>>
>>> 3.  The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous
>>> agreement.  More specifically:
>>>
>>>         a.      Two members of the team are not committed to the 10%
>>> threshold and would prefer a lower percentage.  I am one of them.  I
>>> calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as
>>> percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows,
>>> Register.com, and Network Solutions.  GoDaddy's average percentage was less
>>> than 2%.  As a result of that review, I have questions as to why a 10% limit
>>> is appropriate if the largest registrar in .com (by a factor of at least 2)
>>> has a less than 2% deletion rate. It would be helpful to me if someone could
>>> provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller
>>> than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high).
>>>
>>>         b.      One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the
>>> resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes being,
>>> barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in domain
>>> registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause.
>>>
>>> 4.  It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday.
>>>
>>> Kristina
>>>
>>> -*-
>>>
>>> Domain Tasting Design Team Motion
>>>
>>> 6 February 2008
>>>
>>>
>>> Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the _Issues Report on Domain Tasting_
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
>>> and has acknowledged the _Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain
>>> Tasting_
>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>;
>>>
>>> Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on
>>> Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to
>>> names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;
>>>
>>> Whereas, the Board of Directors resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage
>>> ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including
>>> domains added during the AGP, and encouraged community discussion involved in
>>> developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar
>>> approval of this fee;
>>>
>>> Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Final Report on Domain Tasting
>>> [final title tbd];
>>>
>>> Whereas, the By-Laws require the GNSO Council Chair to call, within ten (10)
>>> days of receipt of the Final Report, for a formal Council meeting in which
>>> the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote to present to
>>> the Board;
>>>
>>> Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges both that some stakeholders have
>>> advocated the elimination of the AGP as a means to combat the abuse of it and
>>> that other stakeholders have advocated the retention of the AGP as a means to
>>> pursue legitimate, non-abusive uses of it;
>>>
>>> Whereas, the GNSO Council welcomes the Board of Directors’ 23 January 2008
>>> resolution pertaining to inclusion of fees for all domain names added, and
>>> wishes to recommend to the Board of Directors a Consensus Policy to address
>>> the abuses of the AGP and to maintain the availability of the AGP for
>>> legitimate, non-abusive uses;
>>>
>>> Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement
>>> to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry
>>> operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to
>>> their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;
>>>
>>> Therefore, the GNSO Council resolves as follows:
>>>
>>> 1.  To recommend to the Board of Directors that it adopt a Consensus Policy
>>> to (i) restrict applicability of the AGP to a maximum of 50 deletes per
>>> registrar per month or [10%] of that registrar’s net new monthly domain name
>>> registrations, whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem a registrar’s deletes in
>>> excess of this maximum to be indicative of, barring exceptional
>>> circumstances, speculative registrations;] while (iii) not intending to
>>> prohibit a registry the flexibility of proposing more restrictive excess
>>> deletion rules.
>>>
>>> 2.  To suggest to the Board of Directors that the Consensus Policy may be
>>> implemented by amending Section 3.1.1 to Appendix 7 of each Registry
>>> Agreement to read as follows:
>>>
>>> /Delete/:  If a domain is deleted within the/ Add Grace Period/, the
>>> sponsoring Registrar at the time of the deletion is credited for the amount
>>> of the registration; provided, however, at the end of the month the Registry
>>> shall debit the Registrar’s account for the full value of the domain name
>>> registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshhold of 50 deletes per
>>> month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar’s net new monthly domain name
>>> registrations, whichever is greater (“Usual Deletes”); and further provided,
>>> however, that the Registry Operator shall have the right to propose more
>>> restrictive rules for deletes in excess of Usual Deletes during the/ Add
>>> Grace Period/.  [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional
>>> circumstances, indicative of speculative registrations.]  The domain is
>>> deleted from the Registry database and is immediately available for
>>> registration by any Registrar. See Section 3.2 for a description of
>>> overlapping grace period exceptions.
>>>
>>> <<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08
>>> 21_53.DOC>>
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > IP JUSTICE
>> > Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> > p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> > <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>
>>