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

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeff,
 
I also suspect that the level of fraud may vary by business model and
geographic location of the registrar.
 
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
 
 


________________________________

	From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
	Sent: Friday, 8 February 2008 8:10 PM
	To: Thomas Keller; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
	Subject: 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 Report on
Domain Tasting
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-
14jun07.pdf>  and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad
hoc group on Domain Tasting
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-
final.pdf> ;

	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>>