[council] ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov10-en.htm

________________________________
ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy

Proposed Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy 
Implementation

19 November 2010

The Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy, implemented on 1 April 2009, resulted 
in a 99.7% decrease in AGP deletes and illustrates the success of ICANN’s 
consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members 
identified a problem, initiated policy discussions, and generated a solution 
that has produced effective and sustained results.

ICANN today is posting its fourth and proposed final status 
report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-18nov10-en.pdf> to 
the GNSO on the implementation of AGP Limits Policy. This report presents 
ICANN’s experience implementing the Policy, provides statistical information on 
net new registrations, AGP deletes, the percent of names deleted during the AGP 
for each TLD, and the disposition of exemption requests for the period.

ICANN committed to analyzing and reporting on the effects of the Policy to the 
GNSO at six-month intervals for two years after its implementation. The first 
status 
report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-10jun09-en.pdf> 
was issued on 10 June 2009, the second status 
report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf> on 
14 December 2009, and the third status 
report<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-01jun10-en.pdf> on 
1 June 2010. The purpose of these reports is “to allow the GNSO to determine 
when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional 
clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by 
ICANN Staff.” On 10 June 2010, the GSNO Council discussed whether additional 
Policy work was necessary based upon the results of the implementation and 
whether the reporting requirement should be amended or eliminated.! At that 
meeting the GNSO Council determined that the successful outcomes from the 
Policy did not warrant additional work at that time and that staff should 
continue its reporting requirement through the end of the two-year cycle. The 
publication of this fourth and proposed final report fulfills this reporting 
requirement to the GNSO.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org