RE: [council] Possible solution to contention for deleted names

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would welcome having a further discussion on the topic of deleted names at
MdP. Perhaps we could discuss the options briefly on tomorrow's Council
call. I will be away from the call between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. however.

Marilyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:52 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Possible solution to contention for deleted names

Hello All,

At the ICANN meeting in Cape Town,  a public workshop was held on the
issue of contention for deleted names at the registry.  At this workshop
a range of speakers offered ideas for possible solutions to the problem.

http://www.icann.org/meetings/capetown/icann-domainnames-workshop-01dec0
4.htm


At the GNSO Council teleconference on 17 January 2005, the Council
passed the following motion:

"Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain
names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead
to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of
gTLD registries and registrars.
Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to
their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to
registrars, 

Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues
report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems
caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry
", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development
process would be appropriate."


While ICANN has not had sufficient resources to provide this issues
report yet, there has been further discussions amongst members of the
registry and registrar community regarding a possible solution.

Taking into account the feedback from the workshop in Cape Town,
Verisign has a proposed solution for the .com registry which they are
ready to share with the ICANN community prior to seeking approval from
ICANN to implement the solution.

Other registry operators may also wish to present possible solutions for
their gtld registry.

My question for the GNSO Council, is how to schedule time in Mar Del
Plata to discuss this issue further within the GNSO community.

The options include:
- allocating time during a cross-constituency meeting on Monday 4 April
(e.g during the 10:00 to 13:00 timeslot)
- allocating time prior to the operating plan discussion on Monday 4
April (e.g from 16:00 to 17:00)
- allocating time in the GNSO Public Forum on Wednesday 6 April (e.g
during 08:30 to 10:00)

All of the above may be appropriate as well.  Members of the business
users, ISPs, non-commercial, and IP constituency,  may have a different
set of questions, compared to members of the registrar constituency.   A
shorter presentation during the GNSO Public Forum would also allow for
broader public input.

I look forward to feedback on the best way to proceed during the Council
call in just over 12 hours time.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin