RE: [council] Note to counsel on DT motion
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Note to counsel on DT motion
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:45:00 -0700
- Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.23
Avri, just some minor typos. Seems like some policy work goes on that
long sometimes, but 1800 years is pushing it :) In line below with
additions in brackets, deletions in brackets with DELETE:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Note to counsel on DT motion
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 10:05 am
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Outside of salutations and politeness at the end, this is a draft of
the note to ICANN Legal counsel regarding aspects of Domain Tasting.
I have tried to capture the questions I know about. If anyone has
another question, or recommends edits to what is written, please let
the me/the list know. I plan to send this out after 24 hours - i.e.
shortly after 1500 UTC 11 March.
On 6 March 208, the GSNO council drafted a motion
to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has
implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain
name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new
registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is
greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the
documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the
motion. The GSNO council has sent this motion out for public comment
until 28 March at which point public comments and any updates to
constituency statements will be considered as part of the GSNO council
process for resolving the Domain Tasting PDP that is currently open
and in the deliberations stage.
As part of the GNSO council's discussions on 6 March, we also decided
to ask for Legal Counsel to review the motion and to let us know
whether it is in scope for the GNSO Council. While the PDP itself had
been deemed within scope by Legal Counsel, there were questions as to
whether the motion itself remained in scope.
Additionally, the following specific issues were raised:
a. The .com agreement states that Consensus Policies may not
"prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services" (see Section 3.1(b)
. Would a policy dictating how much VeriSign could refund registrars
during the AGP be considered a prescription or limitation on the price
of Registry Services? The question extends to whether this policy
would, therefore, [be] unenforceable.
b. If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, would a
policy eliminating the Add Grace Period be considered a prescription
or limitation on the price of Registry Services?
As we intend to resume work on this at the beginning of April, I would
appreciate[DELETE:, if it is at all possible,] having your response by