Re: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
- To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:40:08 -0500
- Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchpVZDyPoW4jmu8TcK7004rXO93SgAKJ/sY
- Thread-topic: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
Thanks, Tim. I had assumed you supported it, but didn't want to use names
To clarify, I am not saying that I can't/won't support 10%. I would like to
discuss the reasons for that number.
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
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
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.
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
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
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 9:31 pm
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
Domain Tasting Design Team Motion
6 February 2008
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain
and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain
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
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,
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
<<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on