RE: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As a point of reference from the current ICANN budget, ICANN has used a
5% threshold in determining whether a registrar is eligible for a fee
reduction.  Thanks.  Jon

http://www.icann.org/financials/adopted-budget-29jun07.htm#_Toc170817104
 

"Depending on registrar size and activity, some registrars will continue
to be eligible for "forgiveness" of two-thirds of the standard
per-registrar variable fee. The criteria for eligibility for partial
forgiveness will be as follows: the registrar must have fewer than
350,000 gTLD names under its management, the registrar must not have
more than 200 attempted adds per successful net add in any registry, and
it must not have more than five percent (5%) of added names deleted
during the add-grace period from any registry that offers an add-grace
period."

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Faure [mailto:marcus.faure@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:17 AM
To: G2L52
Cc: Nevett, Jonathon; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting


I also belive that a 3% threshold would be sufficient to cover the
original intention of the AGP. Any order system should display the
goods, domain names in this case, and the amount as a final
confirmation page before sending the order, so I assume that even
lower percentages would suffice. However, for exceptional cases we may
stick with 3%

Yours,
Marcus Faure
CORE Council of Registrars


> 
> Jon,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Just throwing out a figure at this point, but 3-5% of new 
> registrations for the current (or previous?) month seems like a 
> reasonable threshold.
> 
> I also think it would be advantageous if they allowed for special 
> cases whereby if a registrar can prove they were hit with a bunch of 
> fraud, or needed to run tests, that they could get a higher refund.
> 
> For instance, Nominet (UK registry) has a 5 or 5% (whichever's 
> greater) limit on cancellations per month, but there is discretion if 
> for example you wanted to run a series of test registrations over a 
> short period.  ie. They would cancel the domains at no additional cost

> even if it took you over the limit.
> 
> There would probably need to be limits as to how often a registrar can

> use that but I think it's worth considering.
> 
> ~Paul
> :DomainIt
> 
> 
> At 11:45 PM 1/29/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> >Thanks Paul.  
> >
> >Assessing the Transaction Fee on names deleted during the AGP is a
different review process than the GNSO policy review on tasting.  ICANN
will consider the fee issues as part of its budget process.  We will
have ICANN Senior Staff at our meeting in Delhi to take comments and
there will be a public comment period.  Also, please keep in mind that
ICANN must seek registrar approval of these fees in order to invoice us
directly.
> >
> >With that said, let's start discussing what folks think should be an
appropriate threshold or allowance before the fee kicks in.  I think
that would be a very productive and timely discussion.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Jon 
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: "Paul Goldstone" <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: 1/29/08 11:28 PM
> >Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting
> >
> >Jon,
> >
> >I understood time was an issue so I voted on the amendment, but after

> >it was changed and I disagreed with the new ballot, I made sure to 
> >express my opinions. I think everyone should feel free to do the
same.
> >
> >I also just got the ICANN news alert you sent.  If I understand it 
> >correctly, if the ICANN proposal passes, we may end up paying for 
> >every AGP transaction irregardless of the reason.  If not now, when
is 
> >an appropriate time to submit our suggestions for allowances or
refunds 
> >based on a ratio of AGP vs total registrations, or any other
suggestions?
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >~Paul
> >
> >
> >At 05:22 PM 1/29/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> >
> >>Just to bring everyone up to speed.  The Registrar Constituency has
> >>approved a statement on tasting, which has been sent to the GNSO
> >>Council.  The statement provides that registrars are opposed to the
> >>elimination of the AGP.  It also provides two "views" that
registrars
> >>generally have on tasting.  At the same time, the RC also approved
an
> >>amendment that seeks to determine more specific member views on
tasting.
> >>
> >>
> >>As you know, we have been back and forth on various ballots.  As
> >>highlighted by posts by Tom Barrett and Paul Goldstone, the problem
is
> >>that there appear to be more than just the two views on tasting that
we
> >>approved in the statement.  It's too bad that this dialogue hadn't
> >>occurred during the discussion period on the statement.  Considering
> >>that our statement was due on December 5, the public comment period
> >>closed yesterday, and the GNSO Final Report is due next week,
however,
> >>we just don't have time (nor the inclination) to revisit the whole
> >>statement.   
> >>
> >>Therefore, by a unanimous vote of the Executive Committee, we are
moving
> >>forward with the following ballot.  The ballot, which will open
> >>tomorrow, is the same ballot that I posted on Friday, but we have
added
> >>a line for members to abstain.  We hope that the abstention line
> >>responds to comments from folks that they don't like the ballot at
all,
> >>they think that this is a waste of time, etc. 
> >>
> >>
> >>/_ / Agree with view 1
> >>
> >>/_ / Agree with view 2
> >>
> >>/_ / Agree with both views
> >>
> >>/_ / Don't agree with either view
> >>
> >>/_ / Abstain
> >>
> >>
> >>Sorry that this has been such a difficult process.  
> >>
> >>Thanks.
> >>
> >>Jon 


-- 
Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg
HRB9987
D46562 Voerde        eMail info@xxxxxxxxxxx  Ust-Id DE180295363