RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would also suggest a minimum number like one thousand (1000) where full
refunds are provided.
 
Let's make sure we don't have a bias just for our own business models.  Not
all registrars are as active in the legacy tld's like GoDaddy or Schlund.  
 
Beware of unintended consequences here of restricting the AGP.  We are
exposing ourselves to increasing credit card fraud.
 
best regards,
 
Tom Barrett
EnCirca
 

  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:08 AM
To: 'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Adrian Kinderis'
Subject: AW: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed
GNSO Council Motion


Thanks Jeff,
 
I totally agree with your scenarios and would like to add that in the
instance of a technical misbehavior of a registrars registration system such
threshold might be achieved relatively fast, especially with registrars that
do not have as many new registrations like Go Daddy. Trying to determine a
percentage that will deal with the tasting issue and not disadvantage any
registrar model (besides the ones that are active tasters of course) is
close to guessing. Only experience will tell if 10% works or not. I would
suggest that we go with 10 and add a clause that the policy should be
reviewed in the future.
 
Best,
 
tom

  _____  

Von: Jeffrey Eckhaus [mailto:jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Februar 2008 15:40
An: Thomas Keller; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
Betreff: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed
GNSO Council Motion



Tom,

 

I would like to address your question on how other registrars besides
GoDaddy, could have such a large percentage. The answer is simple division. 

 

You need to look at the gross numbers, not the percentages. If GoDaddy has
500,000 net adds per month and is subject to fraud, charge backs or other
items in the amount of 10,000 domains that they need to return during the
AGP that would lead to a 2% return figure.

 

If another registrar that you mentioned has the half the fraud the GoDaddy
has, maybe 5,000 domains in a given month, but only has 50,000 net adds per
month then their percentage of returns is much higher, even though they are
suffering less fraud or other returns than GoDaddy. Part of the issue here
is that when there are fraud or other attacks against registrars they do not
discriminate and say,  I will try to add 10,000 domains at Registrar X
because they have 10M names under management and only try to try Register
5,000 names at Registrar Y because they only have 3M names under management.
I do not believe that level of discrimination exists.

 

 

The other item logic that I think you need to look at as far as size and
scope and using GoDaddy to compare to the other registrars. Are you looking
at the size as compared to domains under management or net new adds in the
past year. Many of the other registrars you mentioned have customers, such
as Register.com have a mix of new registrations and long term customers who
have purchased 10 year registrations, so while the number of domains under
management may be high, the net new adds may not be changing as the size of
other newer registrars.

 

I think we as Registrars need to take into account all the scenarios that
can exists and think about what the end goals is here without punishing
ourselves. 

 

If we had a 15% threshold, do you believe that tasting would come back in
full force and be an issue that needs to be resolved? The tasters were
returning 90% + of the domains they registered, not in the 5-20% range. 

 

 I think we should look at what is the number we can allow ourselves under
the AGP that will encompass all of the Registrar needs and still address
Name Tasting. Not punish ourselves and say, how low can we go on this
number.

 

I hope other Registrars and the Council take this into account in their
discussions this weekend

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Jeff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:57 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO
Council Motion

 

 

Hello,

 

please find below  the draft council recommendation to the board in regard
to domain tasting, that will be discussed and voted upon at the Delhi
meeting. Guidance on how to vote would be appreciated. It would be my
personal recommendation, even thought that normally the rc reps vote
unanimously, to split our votes (2 in favor 1 against) to reflect the divers
views and their level of support as indicated by the last poll.

 

Best,

 

tom

 

  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 04:31
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

All, 

Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the
domain tasting design team. 

Some comments may be helpful. 

1.  The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that,
because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further
work.  Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to
recommend a policy to the Board.  

2.  The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is
the subject of unanimous agreement. 

3.  The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous
agreement.  More specifically: 

        a.      Two members of the team are not committed to the 10%
threshold and would prefer a lower percentage.  I am one of them.  I
calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as
percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows,
Register.com, and Network Solutions.  GoDaddy's average percentage was less
than 2%.  As a result of that review, I have questions as to why a 10% limit
is appropriate if the largest registrar in .com (by a factor of at least 2)
has a less than 2% deletion rate. It would be helpful to me if someone could
provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller
than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high).  

        b.      One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the
resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes
being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in
domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause.

4.  It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on
Saturday.  

Kristina 

-*- 

Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 

6 February 2008 

 

Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju
n07.pdf> Report on Domain Tasting and has acknowledged the Final
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina
l.pdf> 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 and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to
names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;

Whereas, the Board of Directors resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage
ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including
domains added during the AGP, and encouraged community discussion involved
in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar
approval of this fee;

Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Final Report on Domain Tasting
[final title tbd]; 

Whereas, the By-Laws require the GNSO Council Chair to call, within ten (10)
days of receipt of the Final Report, for a formal Council meeting in which
the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote to present to
the Board;

Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges both that some stakeholders have
advocated the elimination of the AGP as a means to combat the abuse of it
and that other stakeholders have advocated the retention of the AGP as a
means to pursue legitimate, non-abusive uses of it;

Whereas, the GNSO Council welcomes the Board of Directors' 23 January 2008
resolution pertaining to inclusion of fees for all domain names added, and
wishes to recommend to the Board of Directors a Consensus Policy to address
the abuses of the AGP and to maintain the availability of the AGP for
legitimate, non-abusive uses;

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;

Therefore, the GNSO Council resolves as follows:

1.  To recommend to the Board of Directors that it adopt a Consensus Policy
to (i) restrict applicability of the AGP to a maximum of 50 deletes per
registrar per month or [10%] of that registrar's net new monthly domain name
registrations, whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem a registrar's deletes in
excess of this maximum to be indicative of, barring exceptional
circumstances, speculative registrations;] while (iii) not intending to
prohibit a registry the flexibility of proposing more restrictive excess
deletion rules. 

2.  To suggest to the Board of Directors that the Consensus Policy may be
implemented by amending Section 3.1.1 to Appendix 7 of each Registry
Agreement to read as follows:

Delete:  If a domain is deleted within the Add Grace Period, the sponsoring
Registrar at the time of the deletion is credited for the amount of the
registration; provided, however, at the end of the month the Registry shall
debit the Registrar's account for the full value of the domain name
registrations that exceeded the month's set threshhold of 50 deletes per
month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar's net new monthly domain name
registrations, whichever is greater ("Usual Deletes"); and further provided,
however, that the Registry Operator shall have the right to propose more
restrictive rules for deletes in excess of Usual Deletes during the Add
Grace Period.  [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional
circumstances, indicative of speculative registrations.]  The domain is
deleted from the Registry database and is immediately available for
registration by any Registrar. See Section 3.2 for a description of
overlapping grace period exceptions. 

<<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08
21_53.DOC>>