[council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry

[Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councilors,
The AGP Limits Policy contains a provision that requires ICANN staff to provide 
semi-annual updates to the GSNO on the implementation of the Policy. To date 
ICANN has issued two reports, the first in June 2009 and the second in December 
2009. With excessive AGP deletes down by 99.7%, the Policy is achieving its 
desired outcome and this was stated in the last report.
Also noted in the last report were some registrar complaints about exemptions 
requests that had been denied when the basis for the request was fraud. >From 
the 14 December 2009 report, ICANN noted: A question the GNSO Council may wish 
to consider in the future is whether modifications to the Policy are necessary 
and/or appropriate given the results and community reaction to date. For 
example, should the GNSO Council consider defining the terms "extraordinary 
circumstances" or "reoccur regularly?" During the policy development process on 
domain tasting some community members suggested that the mitigation of 
instances of consumer fraud may be a legitimate use of AGP deletes. 
Additionally, if a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains 
that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the 
registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the 
threshold defined in the Policy?
Staff recommends that the GSNO consider whether further work is needed in light 
of the fact that excessive AGP deletes are down by 99.7%.  Staff further 
recommends that the Council consider whether semi-annual reports should be 
continued and if so, with what frequency?
I'm happy to join the next GNSO call to discuss this and to answer any 
questions you may have.

Best,

Craig Schwartz
Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
ICANN