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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Tim.  I had assumed you supported it, but didn't want to use names 
without confirmation.

To clarify, I am not saying that I can't/won't support 10%.  I would like to 
discuss the reasons for that number.


Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC  20004-2401
voice:  202-662-5173
direct fax:  202-778-5173
main fax:  202-662-6291
e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx

This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been 
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.  
Thank you for your cooperation.





-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld




----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Feb 07 01:49:10 2008
Subject: RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

Kristina,
 
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 to them and help avoid costs on their 
end supporting those requests.
 
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 general.
 

Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@xxxxxxxxxxx 
with any feedback.

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.




        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council
        Motion
        From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
        Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 9:31 pm
        To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        
        
        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 
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
  and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain 
Tasting 
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>
 ;
        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>>