[ga] RE: ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mr. Twomey,
 
thank you for your response.
 
I hope there will be enough attention payed to this sensitive issue as well as 
good will and courage demonstrated to act on it accordingly in New Delhi.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dominik Filipp

________________________________

From: Paul Twomey [mailto:paul.twomey@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:45 AM
To: Dominik Filipp
Cc: Paul Twomey; Peter Dengate Thrush; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Levins; Denise Michel
Subject: Re: ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting


Dear Mr. Filipp,


 

Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding the recent ICANN Board action 
on the issue of domain tasting.  I would like to respond to the two essential 
questions you raise: 1) why the ICANN Board has approved this recommended 
action on an idea that "came from the ICANN community" and given that there is 
a pending policy development process (PDP) underway in the GNSO Council; and 2) 
your concern that there may be more effective ways to address the issue of 
domain tasting. 

First, it is important to note that when the GNSO Council met on 31 October 
2007 in Los Angeles on the topic of domain tasting, it voted to do both of the 
following: 1) to launch a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting; 
and 2) to encourage ICANN staff "to apply ICANN's fee collections to names 
registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period".  
Concerns about domain tasting were originally raised to the attention of the 
GNSO Council by the At Large Advisory Committee, and the GNSO Council has been 
considering the issue for some time.  As you note, a significant amount of data 
gathering and analysis were performed by ICANN staff (Issues Report of 14 June 
2007), and by the GNSO Council (Outcomes Report of 4 October 2007), prior to 
taking these actions in Los Angeles (these reports can be found at 
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/>). This action by the Board, as well as actions 
taken subsequently by ICANN staff to address domain tasting in the context of 
the upcoming budget cycle, thus did originate from the ICANN community and 
represent a majority recommendation of the GNSO Council.  Note that the GNSO 
specifically opted to support both of these actions at the same time.  The 
Board's action is also consistent with the GNSO Council's clear message that a 
change to the ICANN budget be pursued at the same time that the GNSO Council 
considers other options to address domain tasting in the context of the pending 
PDP. The Council does plan to act on the pending PDP and will be considering 
next steps when it meets in New Delhi next week.  

Second, you are quite right that there are other policy changes that should 
also be considered, including elimination of the add-grace period, as well as 
other possible changes to the add-grace period, such as restricting the use of 
the add-grace period to a defined number of deletes per month, that should also 
be explored.  As you state, these options must be developed as consensus 
policies through the PDP process, and ICANN staff is supporting the PDP as 
activities progress.  Action taken by ICANN to consider charging the annual fee 
on registrar domain registrations in no way precludes further action that might 
be taken by the GNSO Council and ultimately by the Board in the context of the 
pending PDP.  

Thank you for your interest in ICANN and specifically your insights on this 
important issue.  It is critical that we consider potential unintended 
consequences as we seek to find effective solutions to these problems, and I 
appreciate your bringing these concerns to our attention.


 

Sincerely,

Paul Twomey




Paul Twomey
President and CEO
ICANN
On 31/01/2008, at 2:14 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:


        Dear Dr. Twomey,

        I have just read the recommended action considered by the ICANN Board 
on Domain Tasting, which is applying the standard ICANN $0.20 fee on 
re-registration (or disproportionate deletes).

        I have no idea how the Board has come to this decision, especially, 
when the Domain Tasting issue is still under debate and the policy development 
process has not finished yet. I recall that the issue was first opened by 
introducing the Request for Information on Domain Tasting 10 August 2007 
initiated by the ALAC and adopted by the GNSO "to form an ad hoc group for 
further fact-finding on the effects of this practice". After gathering the 
initial information the GNSO opened another period for commenting the issue, 
named GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting. The commenting period officially 
finished on 28 Jan. 2008. I particularly accent the word "Initial" here as the 
document in its Conclusions and Next Steps on page 24 reads:

        "The practice of domain tasting is of significant concern to many 
constituencies and community stakeholders. These concerns have been explored 
for the past several months, as reflected in the Issues Report prepared by 
ICANN staff, and by the extensive research and data gathering conducted by the 
Ad Hoc Group of the GNSO Council and reflected in the Outcomes Report. Based on 
these reports, the GNSO Council has voted to initiate a policy development 
process to explore the specific policy changes that should be made to curb 
domain tasting. This initial report is an early step in this process, and will 
be posted for public comment for 20 days as prescribed by the ICANN bylaws (see 
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA). Public comments will then be 
incorporated into a "Final Report" by ICANN staff and submitted to the GNSO 
Council Chair within ten calendar days following the end of the public comment 
period. The Final Report (along with the preceding Issues Report and Outcomes 
Report) become the underlying foundation for subsequent actions taken by the 
GNSO Council in formulating recommendations to the ICANN Board regarding policy 
changes that should be made to address domain tasting."

        As regards the AGP concept, I again recall that the ICANN community has 
explicitly expressed a desire to eliminate the AGP as it is apparent in the 
straw poll (the online survey) held by 15 Sep. 2007. The result of the survey 
concerning the AGP is summarized on page 16 in Outcomes Report of The GNSO Ad 
Hoc Group On Domain Name Tasting issued on 4 Oct. 2007, and reads:

        "110 out of 173 (64%) support suggestion A (eliminating AGP), while 25 
(14%) prefer suggestion C (registry excess deletion fees charged to registrars 
for disproportionate deletes), 17 (10%) support B (ICANN 0.20 USD charge to 
apply to names deleted within AGP) and 20 (12%) vote for D (neither A, B or 
C)..."

        In other words, the suggestion currently recommended by the Board to 
consider has gained the least support among all other suggestions. As the 
survey was accessible to anyone including representatives from Registries, 
Registrars, Registrants as well as standard Internet users, I consider the 
result of the survey legitimate.
        Also the comment contributions in both related mailing lists held on 
the issue so far indicates prevailing interest in the elimination of the AGP.

        I therefore cannot find a merit supporting your optimistic words in the 
sentence "This idea came from the ICANN community and we think it is a viable 
solution the Internet community has been seeking". But what I have understood 
of this hurry politely ignoring the legitimate voice is that something is 
baking behind the scenes. Something like ICANN is tending to give in to a sweet 
temptation to tacitly participate on the tasting business. To the detriment of 
the most important part, which are Registrants, and which is the main body 
making bread for ICANN and as such deserving the respective care and advocate.

        I, among many others, do not see the re-registration fee an effective 
solution. I elaborated on this in one of my mails sent to the mailing list and 
pointed out some ways how successful tasters could 'recover' from the fee 
provision and keep the business running. Sure, the business will go down but it 
stays alive as a phenomenon using just more subtle methods to survive. Or 
profit, with all the malicious side-effects we know about. I think the best 
solution is to eliminate the problem, not to make it smaller. Moreover, as Karl 
Auerbach pointed out in a mail posted on the mailing list, the AGP concept was 
never properly addressed or discussed before approving the registry agreements. 
In my opinion this means that the credibility of such a concept is rather weak 
and keeping it alive at any price just reveals speculative incentives in mind.
        I understand that eliminating the AGP could bring problems, such as 
typo corrections, credit card frauds, etc., but the fact is that the cons 
extremely overweigh the pros. After all, the ways how to overcome these 
problems can still be subject to further discussion during the upcoming policy 
development process.

        I would therefore kindly ask you to encourage the GNSO council to 
fluently and peacefully proceed with the policy development process. Any 
prediction of how the solution should look like at the moment is premature and 
controversial. The issue has still to be carefully broken down and properly 
discussed. Maybe now, under the new leadership, we could find courage to take a 
deep breath and set out the right direction.

        Thank you.

        Yours sincerely,

        Dominik Filipp, a General Assembly List member


        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:13 AM
        To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [ga] ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting

        [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org]
        [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
        [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]

        http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29jan08.htm
        ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting

        Suggested fee change would effectively eliminate tasting

        29 January 2008

        MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers is looking to effectively end domain tasting with a proposal to start 
charging the annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations.

        Domain tasting is the use of the Add Grace Period to test the 
profitability of a domain name registration. The AGP is a five-day period 
following the initial registration of a domain name when the registration may 
be deleted and a credit can be issued to a registrar.

        "Domain tasting has been an issue for the Internet community and ICANN 
is offering this proposal as a way to stop tasting," said Dr Paul Twomey, 
ICANN's President and CEO. "Charging the ICANN fee as soon as a domain name is 
registered would close the loophole used by tasters to test a domain name's 
profitability for free."

        AGP was originally introduced by registries so registrars could avoid 
costs if a domain name was mistyped or misspelled during the registration 
process. It is part of the .com, .net, .org, .info, .name, .pro, and .biz 
registry contracts.

        Tasting has been a serious challenge for the Internet community and has 
grown exponentially since 2004. In January 2007 the top 10 domain tasters 
accounted for 95% of all deleted .com and .net domain names - or
        45,450,897 domain names out of 47,824,131 total deletes.

        The proposal will be part of the ICANN budget process for the fiscal 
year starting 1 July 2008. The early draft version of that budget will be 
released for and discussed at ICANN's New Delhi meeting later this month. After 
public discussions of this proposal and other budget issues, the proposed 
budget will be released for addition discussions by
        17 May 2008 and be voted on at the board meeting to be held during the 
ICANN meeting in Paris in June. ICANN accredited registrars representing 
two-thirds of fees collected will be asked to approve the proposal.

        "This idea came from the ICANN community and we think it is a viable 
solution the Internet community has been seeking," Dr Twomey added.
        --
        Glen de Saint Géry
        GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
        gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
        http://gnso.icann.org