Fwd: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Mon Feb 11 11:50:07 CET 2008
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>
> Date: February 10, 2008 2:50:05 AM PST
> To: 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>
>> Date: February 6, 2008 7:31:11 PM PST
>> To: <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 and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of
>> the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080211/64a2324d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC
Type: application/msword
Size: 50176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080211/64a2324d/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080211/64a2324d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list