<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
- To: "gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
- From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:12:19 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AciTYmlswkCVVF3HT4+tSUkHBFS14QAAEDZA
- Thread-topic: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
Forwarded is staff's summary of the public comments received within the public
comment period. It should be posted shortly to the public comments page for
this topic.
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting
Thanks, Liz
________________________________
From: Liz Gasster
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:07 PM
To: 'domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb
domain tasting
Summary and analysis of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to
curb domain tasting
Comment period: 7 March 2008 - 28 March 2008
Summary published: 31 March 2008
Prepared by: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN staff
Background: In spring 2007, the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked the
GNSO Council to review the subject of "domain tasting". The term domain tasting
refers to a case when someone registers a domain name and then tests to see if
the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual
registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the address is
deemed profitable, it is kept. If not, the current "add grace period" - where
domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the
domain at no net cost to the registrant. There has been a significant increase
in the number of domains registered and returned and some are concerned that
the add-grace period represents a loophole that facilitates this conduct.
In response to the ALAC's request, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN staff
prepare an issues paper for review and discussion. The GNSO Council discussed
the Issues
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
at ICANN's San Juan meeting in June 2007, and created a working group to
gather more information. The working group published an Outcomes
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>
in October 2007 which suggested three terms of reference for next steps, as
follows:
1. Review and assess all the effects of domain tasting activities that have
been identified.
2. Judge whether the overall effects justify measures to be taken to impede
domain tasting.
3. If the answer to 2 is affirmative, then consider the potential impacts of
various measures on the Constituencies, and recommend measures designed to
impede domain tasting.
As a result of both reports, the GNSO Council decided on 31 October 2007 to
launch a formal policy development process (PDP) into domain tasting. An
Initial
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-initial-report-domain-tasting-07jan08.pdf>
was produced for public comment, outlining the policy development process,
possible actions to be taken to curb domain tasting including changes to the
add grace period, and the impact of potential measures on the GNSO
constituencies. Public comments have been incorporated into a draft Final
Report,
http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-final-report-domain-tasting-08feb08.pdf
(posted 8 February), which has been supplied to the GNSO Council for its review
and further action on the PDP.
Following the launch of the PDP, a small drafting group of the GNSO Council
drafted a motion that would restrict the 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. This proposal is the
subject of this 21-day public comment period. The specific language of the
draft motion is set forth in Attachment I.
Also on 31 October, the GNSO voted to encourage ICANN staff to consider
applying the annual fee to all registrations and staff is pursuing
incorporating this change in the context of the upcoming budget proposal.
Subsequently, on 29 January 2008, the ICANN Board recommended that ICANN charge
the annual fee for all registrations. Though not specifically solicited at this
time, many of the comments received also offered comments on this pending
proposal.
General comments:
A total of 41 public comments were received during the public comment period.
Of those, 15 were multiple postings by the same individuals reinforcing
previous points (many of which were also email threads also posted to other
lists).
22 of the 26 non-duplicative comments received agreed that steps should be
taken to curb domain tasting. Four comments do not object to domain tasting.
JE, GC, FVS, KT. One comment (KT) emphasized the importance of distinguishing
between domain tasting and domain "kiting", referred to by that commenter as
"the re-registration of a domain name by the same registrar when it is
dropped..."
The 22 remaining comments reflect a plurality of views on the best course of
action that should be taken to reduce domain tasting. Viewpoints coalesced
around three of the options that have been most widely discussed, as follows:
1. Nine comments support the pending draft motion to prohibit gTLD operators
from offering any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the
AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month
(defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii)
fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. ED, Neustar, INTA, YAHOO,
CADNA, HL, eBAY, PayPal, Dell. Several of these comments emphasize important
improvements that are needed, these are described further below. Several of
these comments suggest that they would prefer outright elimination of the add
grace period (INTA, eBAY, perhaps others), but are supporting this option as an
initial policy step to assess whether it would be effective in significantly
curbing domain tasting, before pushing for tougher measures.
2. Seven comments support elimination of the add grace period entirely. PS,
AN, CM, DF, JW, TLDA, JT. These comments have the view that other measures,
such as the approach contained in the proposed motion, will not be effective in
curbing domain tasting. These comments also take the view that the primary
reason that registrars want to preserve the AGP, such as to address
typographical errors and other registration mistakes, can be better addressed
by implementing a "double opt-in" purchase verification system. These comments
also cite the ability of registrars to employ other more effective means to
substitute for reliance on the AGP, such as measures to detect fraud and other
uses identified by registrars. One comment supports reducing the AGP to 24
hours. IDOA.
3. Four comments support the proposed change to the ICANN budget that would
charge the $.20 fee for all registrations. PJ, JAW, ICA, USCIB. Two of these
three comments raise concerns with other options and view the budget option as
an essential first step. USCIB leaves open the possibility of supporting other
options that might also be effective in its view. Two comments specifically
object to the option of revising the budget. Neustar, CM
In addition, two comments objected to the draft motion but did not voice
support for any other options. JA, JH
Additional analysis:
In addition to commenting on the threshold questions discussed above, several
comments raised important details that are noted below:
* Comments on "extraordinary circumstances" provision of the pending draft
motion. Several comments voice concern that the language would provide a
loophole and be unenforceable. ED, INTA, HL, Dell. INTA suggests adding an
illustrative list of the types of circumstances that would be considered
"extraordinary".
* Concerns about the need for stepped up enforcement. DF, JW, CADNA
* There were specific recommendations to change certain provisions in the
draft motion, as follows:
* In the clause that states: "During any given month, an Applicable gTLD
Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted
during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in
that month", change "may not" to "shall not". INTA, HL, Dell
* Provide specific guidance as to the meaning of "regularly" in paragraph
1.b of the motion, regarding the frequency of circumstance that would not be
considered extraordinary. INTA, Dell
* Require public disclosure of information that is required to be
reported by applicable gTLD operators. INTA
* Establish time frames for implementation. INTA
Next Steps: Staff will incorporate these comments, and any updated
constituency statements received, into a final report by 4 April 2008. The
GNSO Council will then review and consider these comments and the final report.
The Council is scheduled to consider the matter further, including motions that
may be drafted or updated prior to its scheduled 17 April meeting.
Contributors, in order of first appearance (with abbreviation) and number of
postings if more than one:
Paul Scheufler (PS)
Eduardo Diaz (ED)
John Erickson (JE)
Pamela Jones (PJ)
Jeff Neuman for Neustar (Neustar)
Jack Avilar (JA) - 2 submissions
Anon "domain tasting" (AN)
James Walker (JAW)
Chris McElroy (CM) - 4 submissions
Gilbert Cheung (GC)
Dominik Filipp (DF) - 6 submissions
Jeff Williams (JW) - 5 submissions
Claudio DiGangi for the International Trademark Association (INTA)
Karl Peters for TLDA (TLDA) - 2 submissions
Freddy VanSant (FVS)
J. Scott Evans for Yahoo (Yahoo)
Karen Thompson (KT)
Phil Corwin for the Internet Commerce Association (ICA)
Jacob Hearst (JH)
Joop Teernstra (JT)
Philip Lodico for the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA)
Cameron Smith for Herbalife (HL)
Matt Hooker for the Internet Domain Owners Association (IDOA)
Susan Kawaguchi for PayPal (PayPal)
Susan Kawaguchi for eBay (eBay)
Christopher Martin for USCIB (USCIB) - [sent to ICANN staff, should be posted]
Attachment I - Resolution on domain tasting approved 6 March 2008
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and
the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain
Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a
small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting
PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of
the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final
Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial
Report on Domain Tasting
(collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;
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;
The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD
which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for
each Applicable gTLD Operator:
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund
to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10%
of that registrar's net new registrations in that month
(defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii)
fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction
in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary
circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar
must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names
were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably
could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control.
Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the
Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur
regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable
gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along
with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary
circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD
Operator.
2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by
the GNSO. Specifically;
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for
two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise,
with the goal of determining;
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and
followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the
GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and
monitoring stages,
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the
GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy
require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the
reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|