Re: [council] Agenda Request

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross... I found it.  here it is...Sophia


 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm

Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries
- motion to initiate an issues report

Draft resolution Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of
their registrants to register specific domain names that become
available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen
strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their
business efficiently, 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.

Philip Sheppard spoke to the resolution which arose out of a discussion
in Cape Town regarding the problem of of the volume of automated
requests for expiring domain names from registrar to registry and
requested further study through an issues report from the ICANN Staff
Manager so that Council could then decide whether a policy development
process should be initiated.

Ken Stubbs commented that the issues report should clarify the reason
for the demand.

Barbara Roseman reported that the staff recognized that the issue would
require effort from several ICNAN staff members with specific areas of
expertise
Kurt Pritz commented that in order to respond to the resolution, ICANN
would like to go back and look at the complaints received, and solicit
input from the registries and registrars on the topic, then provide a
briefing to the Council based on an analysis of various data bases to
ascertain whether there should be an issues report.

Bruce Tonkin clarified that an Issues Report asked General Counsel to
decide whether there were any policy issues but it did not go as far as
saying what specific agreements and contractual issues were affected and
proposed that there should be further clarification on contents and
expectations of issues report in general.

Philip Sheppard, seconded by Maureen Cubberley proposed the amended
draft resolution:

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

Bruce Tonkin called for a nominated vote.
19 votes in favour, 5 proxy votes in favour, 3 no votes. (Kiyoshi Tsuru
and Alick Wilson with the proxy for Demi Getschko had dropped off the
call and did not vote)

The motion carried.

Decision 4:
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

On 15/03/06, Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Ross...sorry I just saw this.
>
> On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Sophia B wrote:
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > May I raise a  questions regarding this subject, for clarification?
> > > 1-  Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to
> > > initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain
> > > names.*  Draft resolution:  Whereas the high demand amongst registrars
> >
> > > on behalf of.....
>
>
> Sophia wrote:
>
> > > From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from
> > a
> > > different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an
> >
> > > overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates
> > problems.
> > > This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem
> > with the
> > > registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace
> > period.   It
> > > seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease"
> > on the
> > > "poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate
> > > service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring
> > domains.
> > > Do you think this is the case?
>
>
> Ross Wrote:
>
> Can you forward me a pointer to the entire resolution? I vaguely
> > remember the proceeding, but wouldn't mind answering your question with
> > the benefit of a refresher behind exactly what we talked about and
> > decided :)
>
>
> Sophia wrote:
> I cannot find the email..it is a reference from I think what Phillip sent
> out recently in response to the issue you have raised regarding 'grace
> period'... a resolution passed in Cape Town etc... can someone help here...
>
> \\
>
> Sophia Wrote:
> > > 2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO
> > was the
> > > "meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI,
> > > dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so
> > some
> > > other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the
> > day
> > > they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period).  Are we
> > pro or
> > > foe the "meanwhile" solution.
>
>
> Ross wrote:
>
> Speaking as a Councillor, I think it depends on how broadly we want to
> > consider the issue. I tend to look at this as a completely separate
> > issue that may or may not warrant separate policy development. Speaking
> > in a personal capacity, I think its fine to provide for some differences
> > in implementations during these time periods, as long as the practices
> > are consistent with the existing contracts, consensus policy, etc. and
> > that registrants aren't unduly disadvantaged (i.e. by not having access
> > to standardized structures such as the Transfers policy, EPP "lock"
> > standards, Redemption Grace Period, etc.
>
>
> Sophia wrote:
> I agree with you, but the range of differences should be defined (i.e. if
> registrars can provide different grace periods, the range – with minimum and
> maximum - should be defined).
>
> -ross
> >
>
>