ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:49:10 -0700
  • Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.22

<div>Sorry for not responding to the discussion that ensued after my suggested 
edits. My only comment is that I would support staying with the 10%. The 
differences in the delete rates have more to do with business models than 
anything else. I think that's at least partly why Neustar and Afilias chose the 
10%. I also think that the 10% will reduce exception requests for the 
registries. Not that I would expect they will get a lot of those, but the fewer 
they get the less disruptive it will be&nbsp;to them and help avoid costs on 
their end supporting those requests.</div>
<div>Finally, from a practical point of view, since that's what both Neustar 
and Afilias came up with based on the discussions they reported in their funnel 
requests I think we will get better support for the recommendation in 
<div><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; Policy<BR>The Go 
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Direct: 319-329-9804<BR>Fax: 480-247-4516<BR><A 
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR>How am I doing? Please 
contact my direct supervisor at <A 
href="mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx";>president@xxxxxxxxxxx</A> with any 
feedback.<BR><BR>This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for 
use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential 
information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately 
notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this 
message and its attachments.<BR><BR><BR></div>
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [council] 
Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council<BR>Motion<BR>From: "Rosette, 
Kristina" &lt;krosette@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 9:31 
pm<BR>To: &lt;council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>All,</FONT> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO 
Council motion developed by the domain tasting design team.</FONT> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>Some comments may be helpful.</FONT> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>1.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Instead, the team believed that it was 
appropriate for the Council to recommend a policy to the Board.&nbsp; 
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>2.&nbsp; The general concept of the proposed 
motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the subject of unanimous agreement. 
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>3.&nbsp; The bracketed language is language that 
was not the subject of unanimous agreement.&nbsp; More specifically:</FONT> 
<div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT face=Arial 
size=2>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Two members of the team are not 
committed to the 10% threshold and would prefer a lower percentage.&nbsp; I am 
one of them.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; GoDaddy's average 
percentage was less than 2%.&nbsp; </FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 
size=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).&nbsp; </FONT></div>
<div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT face=Arial color=#000000 
size=2>b.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.</FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>4.&nbsp; It is the team's 
expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday.&nbsp; </FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Kristina</FONT> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>-*-</FONT> </div>
<div align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman">Domain Tasting Design Team 
Motion </FONT></div>
<div align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman">6 February 2008 </FONT></div><BR>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">Whereas, the GNSO Council has 
discussed the </FONT><A 
 target=_blank><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>Issues Report on 
Domain Tasting</FONT></U></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"> and has acknowledged 
the </FONT><A 
 target=_blank><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>Final Outcomes 
Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting</FONT></U></A><FONT face="Times 
New Roman">;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">Whereas, the GNSO Council has 
received the Final Report on Domain Tasting [final title tbd]; </FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">Whereas, the GNSO Council 
welcomes the Board of Directors&rsquo; 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 
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">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;</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">Therefore, the GNSO Council 
resolves as follows:</FONT></div>
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">1.&nbsp; 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&rsquo;s net new monthly domain name registrations, 
whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem a registrar&rsquo;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. 
<div align=justify><FONT face="Times New Roman">2.&nbsp; 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 
<div align=justify><I><FONT face="Times New Roman">Delete</FONT></I><FONT 
face="Times New Roman">:&nbsp; If a domain is deleted within the</FONT><I> 
<FONT face="Times New Roman">Add Grace Period</FONT></I><FONT face="Times New 
Roman">, 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&rsquo;s account for the full value of the 
domain name registrations that exceeded the month&rsquo;s set threshhold of 50 
deletes per month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar&rsquo;s net new monthly 
domain name registrations, whichever is greater (&ldquo;Usual Deletes&rdquo;); 
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</FONT><I> <FONT face="Times New Roman">Add Grace Period</FONT></I><FONT 
face="Times New Roman">.&nbsp; [Deletes in excess of Us!
 ual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculative 
registrations.]&nbsp; 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. </FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>&lt;&lt;DT Design team proposed GNSO 
Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC&gt;&gt; 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>