[ga] [Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Update: Domain Tasting Resolution]

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

  FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Update:  Domain Tasting Resolution
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:21:24 -0800
From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: IDNS
To: Danny Younger
<dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>,neustar-agp-proposal@xxxxxxxxx
CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Avri Doria
<avri@xxxxxxx>,DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep
<aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,neustar-agp-proposal@xxxxxxxxx,"twomey@xxxxxxxxx"
<twomey@xxxxxxxxx>,Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <976042.28422.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Danny and all,

  Thank you for this update/info.

  There are a couple of things seemingly missing here IF
Domain Name Tasting is going to actually be solved/eliminated
effectively and if Domain Name Warehousing is also going to
be adequately corrected.

1.) Charging additional fees for deletes as a result of Domain
     Name Tasting does not preclude or even significantly impact
     Domain Name Tasting for reasons already elaborated upon.
    Ergo, if what Danny has presented should be adopted for addressing
    Domain Name Tasting/Front Running the practice will continue
    relatively unabated in short order or could become worse if secured
    credit cards are used for registration, and/or if or when factoring
in
    the cost of this practice is assumed by it's practitioners, which
has
    likely already assumed by said practitioners.

    a.) Yet again even after gross Domain Name Tasting and
         Front Running has occurred and been voluminously reported,
         the GNSO is essentially relying on self regulation.

2.) Domain Name Warehousing -  The solution seeming being considered
     does not preclude inter-registrar agreements for cross registrar
     Domain Name registration for the purposes of Warehousing, and
     does nothing to address the Domain Names Registrars or Registries
     have already Warehoused.  A better solution is to dis-allow any
     Registrar or Registry from engaging in this practice AND require
     those that have, to release those domain names it has warehoused
     to the pool for registration by legitimate registrants at no cost,
first
     come, first serve.

  In brief conclusion, given the below information Danny kindly
provided, it is very likely ICANN, Registries and Registrars will
be facing more legal action as addressing these issues is either
demonstrably ineffective or nonexistent in practical application
fact.


Danny Younger wrote:

> The GNSO Council will be discussing the following
> motion tomorrow:
>
> 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 for any domain names deleted
> during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of its 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. The above restriction on use of the Add Grace
> Period shall be considered an ?ICANN adopted
> specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting
> warehousing of or speculation in domain names by
> registrars? in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement. As such, a
> Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as
> using the AGP to register domain names in order to
> test their profitability, shall be deemed in material
> breach of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
>
> 3. 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.
>
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>

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