RE: [ga] ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias

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

Hi Jeff,

surprisingly enough, your text interpretation of my mail is also correct...

The first sentence in the mail should be read
"Ah, now I perhaps see the hidden intention of the two proposals discussed..."

and the meaning of the rest part, I hope, becomes now self-explanatory.

Dominik
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Jeffrey A. Williams
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:26 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep
Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx; Peter Dengate Thrush; icann legal
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period 
Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias


Dominik and all,

  I see an incentive, but no solution.  Seems to me offering incentives to your 
own registries/registrars to behave in a reasonable way is sending a very wrong 
message.  That message being, "well you have been bad boys and girls, so in 
order to get you to behave, here's a cookie!"  Bad idea!  Instead, something a 
bit more grating and costly to the offending registries/registrars such as 
dis-accreditation or suspending accreditation would be in order as a first 
level approach.
Next, if such Tasting/Frontrunning activities have not ceased with any 
Registry/Registrar in a short given period of time, perminant dis-accreditation 
and filing suit to recover future damages for damaged Registrants or those whom 
attempted to register any Frontrunned or Tasted domain as an additional 
penility.

  Thievery, which is eseentlially what Frontrunning/Domain Name Tasting is, 
should never be addressed by offering a cookie for god's sake!

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Ah, now I perhaps see the incentive...
>
> The 10% AGP deletion cap proposed in both proposals once approved becomes a 
> "precedent" how to proceed with other registries, which will logically lead 
> to 'solve' the Domain Tasting issue in the same way. Much like the .com 
> registry agreement and the subsequent .info, .org, .biz approvals.
>
> Very smart strategy... but still transparent ;-)
>
> Dominik
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:52 PM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period 
> Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias
>
> [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-27feb08.htm
>
> ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications 
> for NeuStar and Afilias
>
> 27 February 2008
>
> ICANN is today opening public comment periods on requests submitted by 
> NeuStar, the .BIZ registry, and Afilias, the .INFO registry, to modify terms 
> regarding the add grace period (AGP) in their respective registry agreements.
>
> On 5 February 2008, NeuStar and Afilias submitted separate but similar 
> requests through the Registry Services Evaluation Process to modify the AGP 
> in their respective TLDs in order "to address the excessive delete problem" 
> (i.e. domain tasting) in .BIZ and .INFO. Currently there are no limitations 
> on the number of deletions that a registrar can process and receive a refund 
> during the five-day AGP. The proposed service would limit the number of AGP 
> deletions where a registrar could receive a full registration fee credit each 
> month: either 50 per month or 10% of that registrar's net new monthly domain 
> name registrations, whichever is greater. A registrar would be permitted to 
> delete as many names as it wished during the five-day AGP, receiving credit 
> throughout the month.
> However, at the end of the .BIZ or .INFO normal monthly billing cycle the 
> Registrar's account would be debited for the full value of the domain name 
> registrations that exceeded the month's set threshold.
>
> As provided for by existing consensus policy 
> (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html), ICANN has undertaken a 
> preliminary determination to determine whether the proposed modifications 
> might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's 
> determination is that the proposed modifications by NeuStar and Afilias do 
> not raise such issues.
>
> The next step in evaluation is that (because implementation of the 
> proposals would require changes to the .BIZ and .INFO Registry
> Agreements) ICANN will post the proposed amendments, solicit public comment 
> and refer the proposals to the ICANN Board for consideration.
>
> A copy of the proposed NeuStar amendment is available here [PDF, 25K], and a 
> copy of the proposed Afilias amendment is available here [PDF, 25K]. Both 
> amendments provide for changes to Appendix 7, Section 3.1.1.
> Comments on the NeuStar amendment submitted to neustar-agp-proposal@xxxxxxxxx 
> will be considered until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/neustar-agp-proposal/. Comments on the Afilias 
> amendment submitted to afilias-agp-proposal@xxxxxxxxx will be considered 
> until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/afilias-agp-proposal/. Please keep in mind that 
> these are separate proposals with separate public comment forums.
>
> All documentation regarding the NeuStar proposal is available at 
> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008001, while 
> documentation on the Afilias proposal is available at
> http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008002
>
> --
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) 
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often 
the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability 
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] 
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx My 
Phone: 214-244-4827